http://hdl.handle.net/11089/52739 2026-04-03T20:35:03Z http://hdl.handle.net/11089/52744 Polemicznie wokół Rousseau. Uwagi obrończe do uwag krytycznych Michała Kruszelnickiego Pieniążek, Paweł The text is a polemic against the polemical-critical remarks by Michał Kruszelnicki to my book entitled Individual, evil, history in Rousseau’s thought (Łódź 2022). It deals with key issues and problems in Rousseau’s thought that have long plagued the minds of commentators on his work. In my discussion with the Polemist, I maintain the main theses and interpretative solutions presented in the book, starting from a different view of Rousseau’s work, that is, emphasising its evolution and rejecting the Polemist’s conciliatory-humanist, though not always consistent, interpretation, which generally attempts to reconcile most of the strands of Rousseau’s thought. Nevertheless, his legitimate, interesting and unconventional and sometimes, I think, somewhat provocative remarks have forced me to renew my conceptual and interpretative efforts and, as a result, to develop and deepen the arguments and analyses in the book, which are not always clear and may give rise to misunderstanding. Thus, in particular, I develop my understanding of the relationship between experimental logic and systemic logic, showing their common complementary dynamics, defend the thesis of the failure of Rousseau’s work attempting to synthesise the communitarian and individualist perspectives of his thought to show the abandonment of these attempts in the solitary-contemplative Strolls of a Lonely Dreamer, and, finally, highlight argumentatively the authoritarian implications of Rousseau’s political and pedagogical ideas.; The text is a polemic against the polemical-critical remarks by Michał Kruszelnicki to my book entitled Individual, evil, history in Rousseau’s thought (Łódź 2022). It deals with key issues and problems in Rousseau’s thought that have long plagued the minds of commentators on his work. In my discussion with the Polemist, I maintain the main theses and interpretative solutions presented in the book, starting from a different view of Rousseau’s work, that is, emphasising its evolution and rejecting the Polemist’s conciliatory-humanist, though not always consistent, interpretation, which generally attempts to reconcile most of the strands of Rousseau’s thought. Nevertheless, his legitimate, interesting and unconventional and sometimes, I think, somewhat provocative remarks have forced me to renew my conceptual and interpretative efforts and, as a result, to develop and deepen the arguments and analyses in the book, which are not always clear and may give rise to misunderstanding. Thus, in particular, I develop my understanding of the relationship between experimental logic and systemic logic, showing their common complementary dynamics, defend the thesis of the failure of Rousseau’s work attempting to synthesise the communitarian and individualist perspectives of his thought to show the abandonment of these attempts in the solitary-contemplative Strolls of a Lonely Dreamer, and, finally, highlight argumentatively the authoritarian implications of Rousseau’s political and pedagogical ideas.; The text is a polemic against the polemical-critical remarks by Michał Kruszelnicki to my book entitled Individual, evil, history in Rousseau’s thought (Łódź 2022). It deals with key issues and problems in Rousseau’s thought that have long plagued the minds of commentators on his work. In my discussion with the Polemist, I maintain the main theses and interpretative solutions presented in the book, starting from a different view of Rousseau’s work, that is, emphasising its evolution and rejecting the Polemist’s conciliatory-humanist, though not always consistent, interpretation, which generally attempts to reconcile most of the strands of Rousseau’s thought. Nevertheless, his legitimate, interesting and unconventional and sometimes, I think, somewhat provocative remarks have forced me to renew my conceptual and interpretative efforts and, as a result, to develop and deepen the arguments and analyses in the book, which are not always clear and may give rise to misunderstanding. Thus, in particular, I develop my understanding of the relationship between experimental logic and systemic logic, showing their common complementary dynamics, defend the thesis of the failure of Rousseau’s work attempting to synthesise the communitarian and individualist perspectives of his thought to show the abandonment of these attempts in the solitary-contemplative Strolls of a Lonely Dreamer, and, finally, highlight argumentatively the authoritarian implications of Rousseau’s political and pedagogical ideas.; The text is a polemic against the polemical-critical remarks by Michał Kruszelnicki to my book entitled Individual, evil, history in Rousseau’s thought (Łódź 2022). It deals with key issues and problems in Rousseau’s thought that have long plagued the minds of commentators on his work. In my discussion with the Polemist, I maintain the main theses and interpretative solutions presented in the book, starting from a different view of Rousseau’s work, that is, emphasising its evolution and rejecting the Polemist’s conciliatory-humanist, though not always consistent, interpretation, which generally attempts to reconcile most of the strands of Rousseau’s thought. Nevertheless, his legitimate, interesting and unconventional and sometimes, I think, somewhat provocative remarks have forced me to renew my conceptual and interpretative efforts and, as a result, to develop and deepen the arguments and analyses in the book, which are not always clear and may give rise to misunderstanding. Thus, in particular, I develop my understanding of the relationship between experimental logic and systemic logic, showing their common complementary dynamics, defend the thesis of the failure of Rousseau’s work attempting to synthesise the communitarian and individualist perspectives of his thought to show the abandonment of these attempts in the solitary-contemplative Strolls of a Lonely Dreamer, and, finally, highlight argumentatively the authoritarian implications of Rousseau’s political and pedagogical ideas.; Tekst jest polemiką z polemiczno-krytycznymi uwagami Michała Kruszelnickiego do mojej książki pt. Jednostka, zło, historia w myśli Rousseau (Łódź 2022). Dotyczy on kluczowych kwestii i problemów myśli Rousseau, od dawna nękających umysły komentatorów jego dzieła. W swojej dyskusji z Polemistą podtrzymuję główne tezy i rozwiązania interpretacyjne przedstawione w książce, wychodząc z odmiennego widzenia dzieła Rousseau, to znaczy podkreślając jego ewolucję i odrzucając koncyliacyjno-humanistyczną, choć nie zawsze konsekwentną, wykładnię Polemisty, który na ogół usiłuje pogodzić większość wątków myśli Rousseau. Niemniej jednak jego zasadne, ciekawe i niekonwencjonalne a czasami, jak sądzę, nieco prowokacyjne uwagi zmusiły mnie do ponownego podjęcia wysiłku koncepcyjno-interpretacyjnego i, w rezultacie, do rozwinięcia i pogłębienia argumentacji i analiz zawartych w książce, nie zawsze jasnych i mogących rodzić niezrozumienie. Rozwijam więc przede wszystkim rozumienie związku między logiką eksperymentalną i logiką systemową, pokazując ich wspólną, dopełniającą się dynamikę, bronię tezy o porażce dzieła Rousseau usiłującego dokonać syntezy wspólnotowej i indywidualistycznej perspektywy swej myśli, by pokazać porzucenie tych usiłowań w samotniczo-kontemplacyjnych Przechadzkach samotnego marzyciela, i wreszcie uwydatniam argumentacyjnie autorytarne implikacje pomysłów politycznych i pedagogicznych Rousseau.; The text is a polemic against the polemical-critical remarks by Michał Kruszelnicki to my book entitled Individual, evil, history in Rousseau’s thought (Łódź 2022). It deals with key issues and problems in Rousseau’s thought that have long plagued the minds of commentators on his work. In my discussion with the Polemist, I maintain the main theses and interpretative solutions presented in the book, starting from a different view of Rousseau’s work, that is, emphasising its evolution and rejecting the Polemist’s conciliatory-humanist, though not always consistent, interpretation, which generally attempts to reconcile most of the strands of Rousseau’s thought. Nevertheless, his legitimate, interesting and unconventional and sometimes, I think, somewhat provocative remarks have forced me to renew my conceptual and interpretative efforts and, as a result, to develop and deepen the arguments and analyses in the book, which are not always clear and may give rise to misunderstanding. Thus, in particular, I develop my understanding of the relationship between experimental logic and systemic logic, showing their common complementary dynamics, defend the thesis of the failure of Rousseau’s work attempting to synthesise the communitarian and individualist perspectives of his thought to show the abandonment of these attempts in the solitary-contemplative Strolls of a Lonely Dreamer, and, finally, highlight argumentatively the authoritarian implications of Rousseau’s political and pedagogical ideas. 2024-06-29T00:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/11089/52745 O filozofii sztuk walki raz jeszcze : Recenzja książki Wojciecha J. Cynarskiego Filozofia sztuk walki/Philosophy of Martial Arts, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego, Rzeszów 2022 Pawelec, Przemysław 2024-06-29T00:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/11089/52743 Aksjologia „dzikiej typografii” (o specyficznym nurcie łódzkiego street artu) Kazimierska-Jerzyk, Wioletta The subject of the article is a new phenomenon of urban art known as “wild typography” (in Polish an abbreviated form “dzikie typo”). It has a specific local, Łódź character, but at the same time it allows to capture the complex issues of the post-industrial experience of the city. And in that sense, it is universal. The term is puzzling because it seems self-contradictory. Although the notion of wildness has its tradition in contemporary art theory, it does not fit the issue of typography. The very manifestations of “wild typography” in the city space are entangled in several dependencies that undermine the status of authorship, exposing artists to imitation and instrumental use of their works. When it comes to the physical space of the city and its values of wildness and authenticity, the “wild typography” lends it ambiguity and takes over its ambiguity also, which, together with the interfering nature and neglect, makes the resident doesn’t know what he’s dealing with. It is interesting why and with what intentions or hopes artists get involved in this tangle of art, vandalism, and landscape degradation. Treating these spaces and practices as heterotopias makes it possible to go beyond the schematic evaluation of legal/illegal, aesthetic/anti-aesthetic, cultural/wild.; The subject of the article is a new phenomenon of urban art known as “wild typography” (in Polish an abbreviated form “dzikie typo”). It has a specific local, Łódź character, but at the same time it allows to capture the complex issues of the post-industrial experience of the city. And in that sense, it is universal. The term is puzzling because it seems self-contradictory. Although the notion of wildness has its tradition in contemporary art theory, it does not fit the issue of typography. The very manifestations of “wild typography” in the city space are entangled in several dependencies that undermine the status of authorship, exposing artists to imitation and instrumental use of their works. When it comes to the physical space of the city and its values of wildness and authenticity, the “wild typography” lends it ambiguity and takes over its ambiguity also, which, together with the interfering nature and neglect, makes the resident doesn’t know what he’s dealing with. It is interesting why and with what intentions or hopes artists get involved in this tangle of art, vandalism, and landscape degradation. Treating these spaces and practices as heterotopias makes it possible to go beyond the schematic evaluation of legal/illegal, aesthetic/anti-aesthetic, cultural/wild.; The subject of the article is a new phenomenon of urban art known as “wild typography” (in Polish an abbreviated form “dzikie typo”). It has a specific local, Łódź character, but at the same time it allows to capture the complex issues of the post-industrial experience of the city. And in that sense, it is universal. The term is puzzling because it seems self-contradictory. Although the notion of wildness has its tradition in contemporary art theory, it does not fit the issue of typography. The very manifestations of “wild typography” in the city space are entangled in several dependencies that undermine the status of authorship, exposing artists to imitation and instrumental use of their works. When it comes to the physical space of the city and its values of wildness and authenticity, the “wild typography” lends it ambiguity and takes over its ambiguity also, which, together with the interfering nature and neglect, makes the resident doesn’t know what he’s dealing with. It is interesting why and with what intentions or hopes artists get involved in this tangle of art, vandalism, and landscape degradation. Treating these spaces and practices as heterotopias makes it possible to go beyond the schematic evaluation of legal/illegal, aesthetic/anti-aesthetic, cultural/wild.; The subject of the article is a new phenomenon of urban art known as “wild typography” (in Polish an abbreviated form “dzikie typo”). It has a specific local, Łódź character, but at the same time it allows to capture the complex issues of the post-industrial experience of the city. And in that sense, it is universal. The term is puzzling because it seems self-contradictory. Although the notion of wildness has its tradition in contemporary art theory, it does not fit the issue of typography. The very manifestations of “wild typography” in the city space are entangled in several dependencies that undermine the status of authorship, exposing artists to imitation and instrumental use of their works. When it comes to the physical space of the city and its values of wildness and authenticity, the “wild typography” lends it ambiguity and takes over its ambiguity also, which, together with the interfering nature and neglect, makes the resident doesn’t know what he’s dealing with. It is interesting why and with what intentions or hopes artists get involved in this tangle of art, vandalism, and landscape degradation. Treating these spaces and practices as heterotopias makes it possible to go beyond the schematic evaluation of legal/illegal, aesthetic/anti-aesthetic, cultural/wild.; Tematem artykułu jest nowe zjawisko sztuki miejskiej określane jako „dzikie typo”. Jest ono specyficznie lokalne, łódzkie, ale jednocześnie pozwala uchwycić złożoną problematykę doświadczenia postindustrialnego miasta — i w tym sensie jest uniwersalne. Sam termin jest zastanawiający, ponieważ wydaje się wewnętrznie sprzeczny. Mimo iż pojęcie dzikości ma pewną tradycję we współczesnej teorii sztuki, to nie przystaje do zagadnienia typografii. Różne przejawy „dzikiego typo” w przestrzeni miasta uwikłane są w szereg zależności podważających status autorstwa, narażających twórców na naśladowanie i instrumentalne wykorzystanie ich prac. Jeśli chodzi o fizyczną przestrzeń miasta i jej walory dzikości i autentyczności — to „dzikie typo” użycza tej przestrzeni wieloznaczności i także przejmuje jej wieloznaczność, co wraz z ingerującą przyrodą oraz zaniedbaniem sprawia, że użytkownik miasta nie ma jasności, z czym ma do czynienia. Interesujące jest, dlaczego i z jakimi intencjami lub nadziejami artyści wikłają się w ten splot sztuki, wandalizmu i degradacji krajobrazu. Potraktowanie tych przestrzeni i praktyk jako heterotopijnych pozwala wyjść poza schematyczne wartościowanie legalne/nielegalne, estetyczne/antyestetyczne, kulturalne/zdziczałe.; The subject of the article is a new phenomenon of urban art known as “wild typography” (in Polish an abbreviated form “dzikie typo”). It has a specific local, Łódź character, but at the same time it allows to capture the complex issues of the post-industrial experience of the city. And in that sense, it is universal. The term is puzzling because it seems self-contradictory. Although the notion of wildness has its tradition in contemporary art theory, it does not fit the issue of typography. The very manifestations of “wild typography” in the city space are entangled in several dependencies that undermine the status of authorship, exposing artists to imitation and instrumental use of their works. When it comes to the physical space of the city and its values of wildness and authenticity, the “wild typography” lends it ambiguity and takes over its ambiguity also, which, together with the interfering nature and neglect, makes the resident doesn’t know what he’s dealing with. It is interesting why and with what intentions or hopes artists get involved in this tangle of art, vandalism, and landscape degradation. Treating these spaces and practices as heterotopias makes it possible to go beyond the schematic evaluation of legal/illegal, aesthetic/anti-aesthetic, cultural/wild. 2024-06-29T00:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/11089/52742 Praktyka życia chrześcijańskiego w „Ojcze nasz” Augusta Cieszkowskiego Kaszyca, Marek In the paper I show the ethical and religious dimension of the treatise Ojcze nasz (Eng. Our Father) by August Cieszkowski. First, practice was considered as the basic criterion for accepting or rejecting faith (its impact on human life). Then, the definition of faith was developed as three relationships (to God; to oneself; to others) in the context of Cieszkowski’s critical comments on the lifestyle of Christians of that time. Finally, I bring out the religious motivation of Cieszkowski’s philosophy, his deep concern for the implementation of the Christian principle of following Jesus in life trough social act.; In the paper I show the ethical and religious dimension of the treatise Ojcze nasz (Eng. Our Father) by August Cieszkowski. First, practice was considered as the basic criterion for accepting or rejecting faith (its impact on human life). Then, the definition of faith was developed as three relationships (to God; to oneself; to others) in the context of Cieszkowski’s critical comments on the lifestyle of Christians of that time. Finally, I bring out the religious motivation of Cieszkowski’s philosophy, his deep concern for the implementation of the Christian principle of following Jesus in life trough social act. ; In the paper I show the ethical and religious dimension of the treatise Ojcze nasz (Eng. Our Father) by August Cieszkowski. First, practice was considered as the basic criterion for accepting or rejecting faith (its impact on human life). Then, the definition of faith was developed as three relationships (to God; to oneself; to others) in the context of Cieszkowski’s critical comments on the lifestyle of Christians of that time. Finally, I bring out the religious motivation of Cieszkowski’s philosophy, his deep concern for the implementation of the Christian principle of following Jesus in life trough social act.; In the paper I show the ethical and religious dimension of the treatise Ojcze nasz (Eng. Our Father) by August Cieszkowski. First, practice was considered as the basic criterion for accepting or rejecting faith (its impact on human life). Then, the definition of faith was developed as three relationships (to God; to oneself; to others) in the context of Cieszkowski’s critical comments on the lifestyle of Christians of that time. Finally, I bring out the religious motivation of Cieszkowski’s philosophy, his deep concern for the implementation of the Christian principle of following Jesus in life trough social act.; Niniejsza praca ukazuje etyczno-religijny wymiar traktatu Ojcze nasz autorstwa Augusta Cieszkowskiego. Wpierw rozpatruje praktykę jako podstawowe kryterium przyjęcia bądź odrzucenia wiary — jej wpływu na życie człowieka. Następnie rozwija definicję wiary jako trzech relacji (do Boga; do siebie; do innych) w kontekście pozostawionych przez Cieszkowskiego komentarzy krytycznych odnośnie do stylu życia ówczesnych chrześcijan. Dzięki temu wydobywa religijną motywację filozofii Cieszkowskiego, jego głębokie zatroskanie o realizację chrześcijańskiego pryncypium naśladowania Jezusa w życiu społecznym poprzez czyn.; In the paper I show the ethical and religious dimension of the treatise Ojcze nasz (Eng. Our Father) by August Cieszkowski. First, practice was considered as the basic criterion for accepting or rejecting faith (its impact on human life). Then, the definition of faith was developed as three relationships (to God; to oneself; to others) in the context of Cieszkowski’s critical comments on the lifestyle of Christians of that time. Finally, I bring out the religious motivation of Cieszkowski’s philosophy, his deep concern for the implementation of the Christian principle of following Jesus in life trough social act. 2024-06-29T00:00:00Z