Letter to Stefan Morawski written 26.06.1967

Author Roman Ingarden

Category outgoing correspondence, Polish researchers

Archive Archive of Science PAN and PAU in Cracow

Date of creation 26.06.1967

Reference code in archive K_III-26_D_69

Resource type letter

Subject matter academic issues, organizational issues, publication issues

Field aesthetics, philosophy

Tags #? Wójcik, #academic life, #academic work, #aesthetic experience, #aesthetic object, #aesthetics, #bibliography, #Commemorative Book, #Das literarische Kunstwerk, #Dean's office, #dissertation's style, #doctoral dissertation, #doctoral thesis, #doctorate, #evaluation of a doctoral dissertation, #false statement, #formal acceptance, #generic names, #humorous review, #individual names, #Ingarden's accusations, #Ingarden's concept, #Ingarden's impact, #lack of time, #lectures, #lecturing activities, #Max Bense, #mistakes #concept of a work of art, #negative evaluation, #PAN, #PAN's lecture, #Piotr Graff, #polemics, #Polish Academy of Science, #praxeology, #presentations, #pressure, #review, #review of a doctoral thesis, #Roman Ingarden, #sociologically recognized praxeology, #Stefan Morawski, #Stefan Żółkiewski, #telegram, #thesis of a dissertation, #thesis problems, #Władysław Tatarkiewicz, #work of art

Professor Roman Ingarden
Krakow, Biskupia 14

Rabka, Słoneczna 38
June 26, 1967

Dear Mr. Stefan,

n I have just sent you a telegram which formally accepts Graff’s doctoral dissertation, but I cannot write a review yet, it will require some time to do so. But my formal decision should be enough for now. At the same time, I have to rectify what I wrote about the subject matter of this work, namely that it would belong to the area of sociologically understood praxeology. I wrote that after reading the first chapter, which indicates that such issues will be discussed, but then it is not developed and the dissertation deals with many other matters instead, only to present issues related to aesthetics and the aesthetic object in the last – 4th – chapter. On the other hand, what I wrote about one of the theses being dangerous to culture is indeed expressed in the first chapter and I was under the impression that it would be later developed and justified. But then there is no more talk about it, or at least not in this harsh, clear formulation.

n So much for the rectifications regarding my last letter. Graff’s dissertation is very non-concise, each chapter is like an article in and of itself and the relationships between them is very loose. But I will write more about this later in the review, which I have to write in Krakow so I have the necessary books on hand to be able to check various quotes. I would like to note one thing here. Graff mentions my work and name several times in the notes, where, almost without exception, he falsely renders my claims, or misuses a given work for an argument when it would be imperative to mention a different one. At one point he argues with me on the issues of general and particular naming, but the solution that he offers can be found a few pages later in Das literarische Kunstwersk, only he no longer read this xxxx from the paragraph to the end, yet when that is taken into account the claims against my concept become completely unfounded. That he failed to notice. xxxxxx Finally, in Chapter VI, when he introduces his concept of a work of art and an aesthetic object, although he makes a certain statement which I consider to be false in his formulation, the whole concept, together with a number of terms he uses, is based on my concepts of both aesthetic experience and object; there are some differences, but his whole theory would not have been created without my works. But at that point Gxxx Graff no longer mentions my name.

n As soon as the review is ready, I will send it officially to the Dean’s Office, but no earlier than in mid-July. This whole review interrupted my regular work anyway, and I do not know how to return to it, and yet I have to write down the review, which will also cost me a few days.

n I am upset you put so much pressure on me with this review. I waited patiently for 7 months when it came to reviewing Mr. Wójcik’s dissertation. Just as I waited for Tatarkiewicz, who later sent in a review which was rather joking, yet also unfair to the author.

n I am now going back to Kraków for a few days, from July 1 I will be in Rabka. I will be sending the paper on Bense I presented in PAS as a contribution to the commemorative book for Żółkiewski, as I have nothing else and I have promised to provide something.

Cordial greetings
n n n n (Roman Ingarden)