Herbert Schnädelbach’s article Our New Neo-Kantianism explores the contemporary revival of Neo-Kantianism. He argues that both historical and “new” Neo-Kantianism share an original program of systematic philosophy in the spirit of Kant—positioned between quasi-Hegelian totalitarian claims and naturalistic tendencies, between a scientific orientation and its critique.
In the first section, Schnädelbach outlines the historical background: from Lange and Helmholtz’s physiologism, through Cohen’s logical idealism, to the Baden-Marburg school, showing how early Neo-Kantianism lost its methodological drive and liberal orientation
He then frames contemporary Neo-Kantianism in two perspectives:
1. Methodological – emphasizing that the essence of the new Neo-Kantianism is a form of discourse (the “transcendental turn”), rather than adherence to Kant’s or Hegel’s historical concepts; central is the inquiry into the conditions of possibility and understandability of validity claims (Geltungsfragen).
2.Thematic – highlighting its ethical-political dimension: Neo-Kantianism rejects the utopia of reconciliation in favor of a perspective of finitude, combining an innate liberalism with reflection on freedom and fallibility of practical reason.
In conclusion, Schnädelbach contends that new Neo-Kantianism is a historical fact of our present age—both a challenge and an inspiration to continue asking, “in Kant’s spirit,” about the limits of reason and the possibilities of philosophy amid the linguistic turn and hermeneutic pluralism.

The author puts forward the thesis that the area of the “relevance” category referring to “now” will undergo a further reduction. As a result of it, man’s life will be reduced to temporariness, and, in extreme cases, one moment timed by a mouse clik, i.e. click-time. To substantiate it, the author introduces the notion of “metastasis”, i.e. transmission of values that are not the existence into the place accurate for the existence.
Because these values meaning truth, good, beauty do not exist beyond references to the existence, they take on the new meaning as a result of this kind of metastasis. It concerns a clear and accurate movement of the category of the existence, truth, good and beauty from the centre of the field of vision to its outskirts, and the other way round. So, the existence “happens” as a result of clik-time metastasis I and takes on the form of the truth, as a result of click-time metastasis II and presents itself as good, and so on. The reverse order is possible, too.
In such a way, the existence of our civilization is constantly moving and changing into various forms of relevance. The content of phenomena is separated from these phenomena, however, thoughts come across their content by means of a separated existence — with the power of electrical appliances — in its outskirts. It happens with the use of different levels of intensity of the sense of reality reduced to click-time can take.

The main problem of "Enneads" by Plotinus comes down to showing the possibility of the constitution of multiplicity on the assumption of emanative monism. Ontic unity-multiplicity requires an explanation of both the source of multiplicity and unity, which questions the legitimacy of traditional interpretations in the categories of principial monism. The article is an attempt to re-interpret the philosophy by Plotinus from the perspective of its connections with Plato's agrapha dogmata, i.e. the categories of principle dualism.

The aim of the article is to explain the reason why Plato treated a dialogue as the best means of a written form of transmiting a philosophical content. It also constitutes a contribution to the understanding of Plato's way of philosophising. The author emphasises that both a dialogue and dialectics have a joint structure composed of questions and answers, and, thus, constitute the basic method of philosophy, i.e. the process of moving towards wisdom. The process of philosophising takes place when moving from the state of unknown to wisdom, i.e. from capturing difficulties to their solutions. It is dia-logical in nature after all; it assumes the thought movement from one logos already included in the question to the other inserted in the answer. The ultimate goal of the dialogue, going beyond its scope, is the stoppage of thinking and mental view of the essence explaining everything. The author discriminates between three forms of dialogue: an internal one (taking place in mind within itself), a spoken one (articulated in a conversation of two people) and a written one (presented in writing but requiring animation and continuation in the reader). The conclusion part says that Plato used a dialogue to express not only his most vital philosophical views, but the problems a thinking person faces in the world, and ways of solving them, encouraging the reader to follow them.

The article discusses metaphysical implications of Popper's conception of three worlds, conception of language and conception of evolution. It also shows that these conceptions can be written into a wider perspective referring to metaphysics of A.N. Whitehead.

The analysis of the issue of modern metaphysics has shown the need to formulate the basics of philosophy, reducing Cartesian methodological cogito to Leibniz's monadological cogito as a means to eliminate the difference between Sein and Sollen. Emphasising this fact, Fichtean Wissenschaftslehre has been pointed out, presenting, at the same time, its connections to Badenian Neo-kantism, for which the question on the sense of an axiologic correction made by Kant and its openness of transcendentalism to the problem of history has become important. Treating this question as especially important for understanding Windelband and Rickert programme of idiographic science, it has been suggested that it is similar to the attempts made to approach Kantian philosophy in a way of the hermeneutic stage of reform.

The beginning of the XX-th century was marked by a far-famed philosophical discussion focused on the question of realism. The debate revealed the differences in the interpretation of a certain excerpt of Criteriology - the main work of cardinal Desire Mercier. The major contribution to the debates was that of Etienne Gilson, viewing the problem from the perspective of methodical realism, and Leon Noel, a disciple of cardinal Mercier, who took the standpoint of the immediate, critical realism. While Gilson claims that Mercier's approach is definitively an indirect realism, and consequently, a Cartesian type of illationism, Noel argues that Mercier is an immediate realist, and his conception is based not on illation but on immediatism. The critical analysis of Mercier's conception supports the opinion represented by Noel. The difficulties reported by Gilson can be solved by introducing the opposition between the classical notion of substance and Kantian “thing in itself” which can be found in Criteriology. Thus, the position taken by Mercier is definitely realistic and can be evaluated as an important voice in the dispute concerning not only contemporary varieties of idealism, but also different trends in realistic philosophy.

The author presents the model of a spiritual development of man formulated on the basis of taceodycea. Taceodycea (Latin teceo meaning “to be silent”, Greek tide standing or “justice”) is the theory of the silent principle of the existence into which J. Bańka included the interpretation of the present based on the idea of recentivism. In the model presented, referring to various philosophical, psychological and religious conceptions, the author shows the way a human being develops the ability to grasp the mystery of the absolute in the moment of recens and in the experience of silence. To do so, the author discusses the stages of a spiritual development like seeing, walking, running, desiring, fearing and loving. The people who are shown against this background are those who are not concentrated on their spiritual development and stop at the stage of walking or not going to church.

The article is devoted to one of the most frequently-used kind of disputes and debates - the so-called ad hominem arguments. The author presents the history of this kind of arguments and evolution of the meaning of the expression ad hominem - from the primal meaning of the word, i.e. from consensus (argumentum ex concessis) to the meaning of the expression today, understood as the attempt to disconfirm a statement by means of attacking the person declaring it. The author discusses four most frequently-distinguished kinds of ad hominem arguments, i.e. a direct personal attack, the so-called well poisoning, the “occasional” variant, and the argument of the tu quoque type. Next, the general rules of ad hominem argument evaluation are formulated, as well as ways of using it in disputes.

The article is an attempt to make a logic analysis of the Saint Anselm's of Canterbury ontological proof on the existence of God. Leaving the issue of God's existence aside, the author tries to find out whether the proof is formally proper. To do so the author tries to translate its assumptions into formal language and reconstruct the argument based on the assumptions. The analysis, however, shows that it is impossible to translate the proof into the predicate logic language. Anselm's text is based on antinomies caused by the predicative use of the word exist next to the existential quantification. What is also problematic is the usage of two contradictory descriptions — according to Anselm's proof one may think that a given object exists and at the same time one may not think that it exists.

The subject of analysis constitutes the role of onus probandi in the decisionmaking process, the influence of this rule on the final result of a dispute, as well as the course of argumentative turns determined by various values, such as truth and utility. Some aspects of onus probandi are analysed via formal methods within a simple model, taking into account some aspects of decision-making once the supposition has been confirmed.

The aim of the article is a comparison of Solon's political doctrine and Anaximander's philosophical conceptions.The fact that there's an analogy between these two conceptions was many a time recorded in the literature of the subject. The analogy concerns not only terminology as such used by both authors, but also a very similar perspective of reality. The difference, in fact, although to a lesser extent that could be expected at first glance, would lie in the scope of universality of the application of a given order. Generally speaking, the Solon's perspective is polis, and Anaximander's is cosmos. However, it must be stressed that in the case of Solon's thought polis constitutes a component of cosmos. The structure of these orders is analogic. While apeiron constitutes the principle in Anaximander's conception, Solon's doctrine is ruled by Dike (Law-Justice), an important element of which is Impartiality. Anaximander's conception to apeiron is at best interpreted from the periechontological perspective. To apeipon embraces all (pepiexei) and directs all (kubepnan), however, it seems that the notion of kubepnan. Should be treated not metaphorically, but analogically to the role of law in polis. Thus, philosophyand politics are intertwined with each other already in the conceptions of the first Greek philosophers.

The subject of the article constitutes criticism Karl Jaspers included in Notizen zu Martin Heidegger - a volume of polemic notes which Jaspers made after he had ended his friendly relations with Heidegger. Jasper's criticism presented in the article focuses on Heidegger's attitute towards Nietzsche's philosophy included in Heidegger's two-volume monograph entitled Nietzsche. Jaspers, being an astute researcher of Nietzsche's thought, does not agree with Heidegger's interpretation of his thoughts. Jaspers perceives Nietzsche from a historical point of view, presents his thought both in the context of a philosopher and from the angle of his whole artistic work. Being of the opinion that philosophical thoughts should always be understood in connection with the actions of the thinker, Jaspers tried to understand Nietzsche as a whole: his philosophy, personality, the way his thought was shaped and evolved depending on his condition. Such a mode of thinking constituted the basis for criticism presented in this article. Heidegger, on the other hand, focused on The Will to Power, i.e. these elements of Nietzsche's thought which allow for a wider interpretation, and, for example, perceives Nietzsche as a faithful continuator of metaphysical Platonism, while Nietzsche himself perceives himself as the one who turns away Platonism. Jaspers thinks that Heidegger, as a result of his interpretation of Nietzsche's philosophy, narrowed down his way of thinking in a dangerous way, restricting it to those issues which were useful and helpful for him under given circumstances. Simplification Heidegger makes in Jasper's opinion understood not only as oversimplification but, above all, shallowness consisting in narrowing down, deprives Nietzsche's thought of its inventiveness and revolutionary nature.

The article is an attempt to analyse selected threads of thoughts by Jan Karol Kochanowski, an advocate of a naturalistic conception of man and society. In his historiosophic deliberations, Kochanowski made an attempt to reveal the real face of the history hiding behind superficial facts in fact. The philosopher interprets all the facts as remaining in a close relationship with the psyche of nations. According to historiosophy by Kochanowski, the history of mankind is a result of two parallel mechanisms. The first one consists in a clash of the elements of theSouth and the North, the other, on the other hand, expresses itself in a constant battle for a social dominance between the individual and mass. A diversification of natural environments of mankind into areas requiring fortitude and effort from their inhabitants and those territories in favour of man led to two main psychological types of mankind. The north one with a dominance of desire and the south one dominated by satisfaction. The history of mankind is a constant battle between the North and the South, coming down to a clash of active and conquering psychological types with those passive and submissive ones. This very antagonism is, according to Kochanowski, the main causative force of history. What needs a special attention is Kochanowski's reflection on the Polish national character.In his opinion, the history of Poland together with the national culture bring a great deal of evidence of our own identity and “dignity” in comparison to European cultures. The philosopher, tracing back to Neo-romanticism, formulated a hypothesis about the historical mission of Poland, deriving from a geopolitical situation of the Polish nation.