Letter from Irena Krońska written in 10.07.1947

 Sceaux, 7/10/1947


Dear Professor!

     c  Thank you very much for your letter from June 28, which I have received a few days ago.
     c  I gave the translation of the paper on truth to Mr. Bayer three weeks ago, after a telephone conversation with him, in which he said that he knew, that he had received Professor’s letter and that he was waiting. After that I had no further messages from him, but there is practically nothing else to expect, since everything was discussed in a telephone conversation. As for the remuneration, do not worry, Professor – the royalties are only payable following the publication in print, so in this case it will certainly be the same.
     c  After talking to Mr. Koyré, I provided him with the review of “Controversy”; it has ten pages of typescript. I wanted to send you a copy, but today I received a letter from Koyré, who writes that he gave the review to XXX for Revue Philosophique – but that they would also like notes on Critique from me, that I should communicate with Mr. Weil and also give a copy of this second review to him – so I don’t have a free copy anymore, just a completely rough one. If Professor comes to visit, I will show you – Revue Philos. It will not appear before then either way.
     c  Now I would like to share my personal impressions with Professor. I am very impressed by what is positive in your writing – the reflections on time, in particular the analysis of the process and the guarantee of the identity of a human individual (incidentally, I am curious whether, in Professor’s opinion, a long-term concentration camp could lead to loss of identity in an individual, and if so, must such a loss of identity be at the same time a state of sickness, and is it defined physiologically or otherwise). However, I feel strong resistance towards the systemic side. In particular – I wrote about it in the review – against basing the entire system structure on logic, XXX on the principle of contradiction. I have the impression that among the 4 XXX existential moments there are those that are obtained by simply denying the correlative moment. If this is not the case, then it is not sufficiently shown. Therefore, not all are convincing. Next – in order to achieve the “possibilities” of coexistence of moments in modi existentiae, the principle of contradiction is used. This way, the ontology is based on logic that cannot be discussed. Personally, it seems to me that Husserl’s attempt to fund the very laws of logic was completely justified not only from the point of view of critical and transcendental philosophy, but also in the face of the history of the dispute idealism-realism, where both in the fundamental setting of the problem (Descartes), and in its very foundations (Plato-Heraclitus ) the right to use logic was set as problematic. – To put the matter broadly, i.e. without prejudging whether a being or the world are rational in their nature, and whether the controversy between realism and idealism can be based in ontology – XXX XXX XXX – that “rational” also means “logical” – and this is where I cannot agree.
     c  Returning to the entire “Controversy”; it is very rich and raises a lot of issues – but I shall leave these for our conversations, which – XXX – will be taking place soon.
     c  I was on 101 Bd. Raspail, to find out about the fate of the Professor’s paper, but I was informed there (in the secretary’s office of the Alliance Française which the house belongs to) that XXX XXX XXX moved from there to 97, or des Champs Elyse’es, but they were not able to provide me with a phone number. I tried to call some Film Assoc., which is at this address, but nobody knew anything about said Association. Maybe you have already received an answer from them in the meantime?
     c  Existentialism is still very much a trend here. Sartre has recently passed his doctorate. Gilson has published a brochure on Christian existentialism (G. Marcel). New “counter” brochures (XXX and Marxist) were released as well. Besides that, there a new existential novel came out: Camus’s “La Peste”. I have not read Gilson and Camus yet.
     c  It is currently chilly in Paris, quite old even. I do not know if I will go to London and whether we will be going anywhere at all, as we have job-related tasks all the time. The living costs have risen recently, and there is fear that they will increase even more.
     c  I heard recently that Mrs. Łuszczewska is in Wroclaw. If so, and if you see her, please kindly greet her from me. I have a lot of affection for her.
     c  I got a letter from Ganszyniec recently, very cordial, but XXX XXX. I would love to see him take up his publications again – Class. Quarterly, and Humanistic Review before that were excellent journals – and Ganszyniec himself would feel invigorated right away.
     c  Returning to philosophical news, the second issue of Deucalion came out. Did you receive it?

I send you deepest respect and devotion
from both of us

Irena Krońska