Letter from Stefan Morawski written 30.11.1965

Author Stefan Morawski

Category incoming correspondence, Polish researchers

Archive Archive of Science PAN and PAU in Cracow

Date of creation 30.11.1965

Reference code in archive K_III-26_D_69

Resource type letter

Subject matter academic issues, organizational issues, publication issues

Field aesthetics, philosophy

Tags #academic life, #academic opinion, #academic papers, #academic publications, #academic work, #aesthetic illiterate, #aesthetic statement, #aesthetics, #Aesthetics Department, #amendments, #attitude to Ingarden, #boasting, #common solutions, #correction, #critical remarks, #dispute, #Edward Csató, #evaluation criteria, #helplessness, #Ingarden's accusations, #Ingarden's students, #Institute of Philosophy and Sociology PAN, #intentionality, #interpretation of Ingarden's works, #Janina Makota, #lack of time, #Maria Gołaszewska, #method, #Mieczysław Wallis, #mistakes, #PAN, #philosophical discussion, #philosophical journals, #polemics, #Polish Academy of Science, #problems, #profound qualities, #provocation, #psychologism, #questions to Ingarden, #realism, #review, #Roman Ingarden, #sketch, #sketch about realism, #sociologism, #Stefan Morawski, #Studies of Aesthetics, #tenure, #University, #values criteria, #work at university

11/30/1965

Dear Professor,

n Thank you for your letter from 11/28. I am writing back immediately upon its receipt. Once again, please forgive and understand that I am not able to arrange to send you copies of “Studies”, eve though substantively I agree with you.
n The rest of this letter is also not very pleasant. My guess is that Mrs. Makota’s case was the main stimulus of your long appeal directed at me. Dear Professor … in this case too, I share your opinion. Yet again, I am powerless. I cannot understand why Mrs. Makota was removed from the university. I think a lot – if not all of it – is the fault of local opinions. I try to insure proper conduct towards your students as much as I can, and I realize that there is nothing more mature in aesthetics at the moment, at least in our conditions. And if I preach light XXX while disagreeing with your concepts (now I am disregarding how much I learned from you and how much I acquired for myself from your work) – it should count all the more. For example, in the case of Mrs. Gołaszewska I wrote a long and flattering opinion for the highest authorities, to help finally grant her the title.

—–

n And now as to my review of Mrs. Makota’s work. It seemed positive to me, despite the polemics. Since that is how I think of this book. The ending is not “polite” at all – it is sort of a justification why I devoted so much space and time to this work in particular. I have no desire or time to deal with lousy reasons. You also mention that I wrongly claim that Mrs. Makota inherited your problems with intentionality… Our correspondence revolved around this concept a lot… I asked you questions many times and in various shapes. Many times you explained the issues to me admitting that a term “fluctuates”. Recently you have been so busy that you could not answer my dozen or so issues that I have laid out based on a careful reading of your work.
n I am not by any means saying that I am right. I might not be; maybe I am having trouble as a reader and interpreter, not you as the author. Please believe me that such expressions on my part are never “fishing” or “playing the wise man”. That is just the way I perceive you so far… (By the way, regarding Csato’s article… how good it would be if you could answer that too)

—–

n Finally, about “Studies” in general and my articles. Please write me which articles you consider to be examples of aesthetic illiteracy. I do not intend to be too liberal at all. Maybe they are simply visually impaired… As for the discussion with Wallis, I really share his opinion on XXX. What I had to say on this subject, I wrote in a sketch on realism. Why do you reject this view so definitely? As for the sketch on the evaluation criteria, please read it again. I think you have admitted how similar we are in our views in this case, although you seem to accuse me of psychologism and sociologism. Of course, I am asking here for your critical remarks, even the harshest ones. It seems to me, however, that I am finding more and more common solutions with the Lord, even though your method is distant for me. For example, I consider your last sketch (from Studies…) to be the most your faithful aesthetic statement in this matter. And it contains so many comments and observations that look to me as if they were “mine”… Meaning you have made me more aware of my thoughts. After all, my evaluation criteria through value criteria draw close to your significant qualities…
n Now that we are discussing your sketch, please send me the corrections. I will introduce them to our library copies. If such did occur, your text was at fault. Mine (vide: errata) also contained some big “blunders”. From the very first correction, as it turns out. And I doubt that I have already managed to catch all of them.

—–

n Once again, Mrs. Makota. Working at the Polish Academy of Sciences is out of the question for now. I suggest patience. If the department of Aesthetics is established next year (autumn 1966) at the PAS Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, you could consider “stations” …in Krakow etc. Then we will return to the matter, okay?

Best regards
n yours
n Stefan Morawski

P.S. Dear Professor, I am tiring of your eyes… but I still do not have the time to prepare (my) “Aesthetics” for printing… so how can I find it to learn how to to type.

I will send you your copies through Mrs. Gołaszewska.