The article discusses Nicholas Rescher’s metaphilosophical view of orientational pluralism. In his essay Philosophical Disagreement: An Essay towards Orientational Pluralism in Metaphilosophy Rescher explains a substantial difference between philosophy and science—namely, that philosophers—differently than scientists— continuously propose and undermine various solutions to the same old problems. In philosophy it is difficult to find any consensus or convergence of theories. According to Rescher, this pluralism of theoretical positions is caused by holding by philosophers different sets and hierarchies of cognitive values, i.e. methodological orientations. These orientations are chosen in virtue of some practical postulates, they are of axiological, normative, but not strictly theoretical character. Different methodological orientations yield different evaluations of philosophical theses and arguments. This article shows that Rescher’s account does not determine clearly acceptable cognitive values. If there are no clear criteria of evaluation of methodological orientations, then the described view seems to be identical to relativism adopting the everything goes rule. In addition, accepting orientational pluralism it is hard to avoid the conclusion that discussions between various philosophical schools are futile or can be reduced to non-rational persuasion.

Celem artykułu jest przytoczenie argumentów na rzecz tezy, że o kwestiach moralnych nie sposób decydować bez odwoływania się do rozstrzygnięć natury ontologicznej. Ilustracją głównej linii argumentacyjnej jest wybór Cyphera – jednego z pobocznych bohaterów filmu Matrix. Cypher decyduje się na zdradę walczących o wolność ludzi w zamian za dostanie życie w rzeczywistości wirtualnej. Wybór ten wydaje się przy pierwszej analizie problemu całkowicie naganny, gdyż wiąże się z porzuceniem świata rzeczywistego i prowadzeniem pozornie nieautentycznego życia w symulacji komputerowej. Argumentować można jednak, że dychotomia świata rzeczywistego i wirtualnego jest jedynie pozorna. Wybierając rzeczywistość wirtualną Cypher wybrał funkcjonowanie w świecie, który tak samo jak świat rzeczywisty umożliwia zaistnienie podmiotowości moralnej i autentyczne przeżywanie. To, co różni oba światy, to z pewnością rodzaje determinacji jakim podlega podmiot. Cypher woli żyć w świecie, w którym podlega determinacjom narzucanym przez Matrix, niż w świecie realnym, gdzie jego zachowanie determinowane jest przez geny i imperatywy biologiczne.

It is nearly impossible to study behaviour effectively without any reference to its context. This is because it is generally known in the psychological literature that behaviour is partially a product of its environment. This suggests that many behavioural processes may be universal but there are significant variations in their manifestations. For instance, love may be a universal process but its manifestation varies from one society to another. Given that ethical decision-making is a behavioural process, it stands to reason that its manifestation will vary from one culture to another. It is against this premise that this paper seeks to demonstrate that despite the existence of the ‘universal’ normative ethical principles, ethical decisions will be expected to vary across cultural space and even evolve with time. This paper achieves this objective by employing typical ethical dilemmas that Ghanaian psychologists and other health professionals encounter to show how and why what is ethical in one culture becomes unethical in the Ghanaian context and what is unethical in the Ghanaian context becomes ethical in another culture.

Interpreting the Gospel parable of the Prodigal Son and the Loving Father (Luke 15:11–32), J. Ratzinger/Benedict XVI shows the essence of the biggest problems of modern (particularly Western) society. The younger son’s journey to remote places, far from his father, symbolizes the fundamental gap between the present and God, which - although promising a happy and independent life – turns out to debase him. Blind questioning of the existing order (including the order of Creation!), an apotheosis of variability and a priori assumption of the new-over-the-old superiority, inevitably lead to confusion, with relativism becoming a “moral” reference and criterion for every action. Finally: bitterness and a protest generating violence, emptiness looking for satisfaction in drug-induced ecstasy, men seen as destroyers and enemies of nature. The only solution is a spiritual battle and metanoia – a return to the Father.

University and the Church need each other. Following the example of Christ incarnated, Christianity “incarnates” the spiritual. The Church and theology need university and cooperation with other sciences to be able to “incarnate” Christ’s issue into our world. Th e university, on the other hand, needs the Church and theology because otherwise it would be deprived of cultural and spiritual foundation: there is no alternative to a discussion about Christ (God and a human). Theology is sometimes defined as scientia fidei; it is determined by the mind and faith. It’s a discussion about God, but due to the Christ event it is also a discussion about mankind. Th erefore it has the form of a dialogue, a discussion. The dialogue is always held in a specific context (nowadays postmodern), in which theology not only has to ask but also answer the question about the meaning. In this sense it is wisdom. Theology as a discussion has to approach the most urgent human problems. These include agnosticism towards which Benedict XVI suggests the “veluti si Deus daretur” rule, relativism in case of which theology cannot stop asking about truth, despair in case of which theology reminds about God, in whom there is no darkness.

W artykule rozważa się Ingardenowskie pytania fundamentalne w kontekście stanowiska zwanego fundamentalizmem filozoficznym. Okazuje się, że definicyjna cecha tego stanowiska, tj. poszukiwanie odpowiedzi na pytanie o warunki prawomocności twierdzeń z zakresu tradycyjnych dziedzin filozofii: ontologii, epistemologii, etyki i estetyki, znajduje u Ingardena swój odpowiednik w ontologicznych i epistemologicznych założeniach fenomenologii. One to stanowią gwarancję prawomocności wszelkich innych twierdzeń. Ingardenowski fundamentalizm filozoficzny, rozpatrywany tutaj w odniesieniu do dzieła-schematu, ulega jednak z czasem znacznemu osłabieniu, o czym zdają się świadczyć wątpliwości samego autora co do zasadności istnienia sfery obiektów idealnych, wyznaczających owo dzieło. Wielce prawdopodobny wydaje się domysł, że jest to ukłon Ingardena w stronę kultury, w stronę kulturowo-historycznej relatywizacji niezmiennej sfery obiektów idealnych.