Opinions about Ingarden written 15.12.1930

Category varia
Date of creation 15.12.1930
Related places Lviv, Vilnius, Warsaw
Reference code in archive n.d.
Copyrights all rights reserved
Resource type document
Field philosophy

Prof. Dr Tadeusz Czeżowski                      v                   Copies of letters (opinions).
Vilnius University                              v                            Vilnius, 15. December 1930.


1)    v                        v                Most Honoured Dean,

    v             In responding to your letter no. 935 of 10 November of this year, I have the honour to inform you that I consider Docent Dr Roman Ingarden to be the most suitable candidate for the chair of philosophy in the Department of Humanities of Jan Kazimierz University

I enclose expressions of genuine esteem

Czeżowski, by his own hand

2)                    v                           v                           v                     Warsaw 15/12/1930.

Most Honoured Dean,
    v             In accordance with your wishes, expressed in your letter of 10/11 of this year, I hasten to express my views on filling the chair of philosophy at the Department of Humanities at the Jan Kazimierz University in Lviv.
    v             There are many candidates, as I think, mainly among habilitated docents of Polish universities. Dr Bogumił Jasinowski, Dr Henryk Elzenberg, and Dr Wiktor Wąsik of the University of Warsaw, Dr Ludwik Chmaj of U. Cracow [Jagiellonian University], and Dr Roman Ingarden of U. Lviv are scholars worthy of occupying university chairs. Moreover, their work is of a humanistic character, which, I suppose, the Department of Humanities sets as a condition for filling its chair, especially since the first chair of philosophy is occupied by a scholar with an orientation in the mathematical and natural sciences.
    v             It seems to me that one serious – and, for the University of Lviv, the most natural – candidature is that of the Lviv docent Dr Roman Ingarden. Without going into his pedagogical activities (in this respect, the Department knows its docent better than I do) and limiting myself to his writing, I can say that it has encountered recognition not only in Poland but also beyond its borders. And although personally I don’t share the philosophical position taken by Dr Ingarden, in his writing I nevertheless admire his merits, such as his capacity for hard work and abstract thought, such as the many-sidedness of his philosophical interests.
    v             Given this opportunity, I enclose expressions of my high esteem and respect

Wł. Tatarkiewicz, by his own hand


3)      v   Philosophical Seminar

University of Poznań                     v                           v                          Poznań, 27/11/1930.

    v   Most Honoured Dean,
    v   In response to your letter of the 10th of this month, I most respectfully inform you that at the present moment I consider Docent R. Ingarden the most suitable candidate for the chair of philosophy.
    v   I enclose expressions of high esteem

Prof. M. Sobeski, by his own hand


4)                                                  v                                           Warsaw, 2/1/1931.

    v   Most Honoured Dean,

    v   Responding to your appeal of 10 November 1930, I have the honour to send you this opinion regarding the filling of the chair of philosophy at the Department of Humanities of Jan Kazimierz University.
    v         v         v   Given this opportunity, I attach expressions of high esteem

    v         v         v         v         v         v         v   Kotarbiński, by his own hand


    v   Opinion on the matter of filling the chair of philosophy at the Department of Humanities of Jan Kazimierz University in Lviv.
    v   In responding to your letter no. 935 of 10/11 of this year, I have the honour of sending you the following opinion. – It would be best, as I understand it, given the current configuration of teaching forces, to entrust the vacant chair in the Department of Humanities to a historian of philosophy. Well, among those working mainly on the history of philosophy and not occupying university chairs, it seems that no one could be recommended as a highly qualified candidate in every respect. On the other hand, it is possible to single out Dr Bogumił Jasinowski, docent of the history of philosophy at the Department of Humanities of the Univ. of Wars., as a suitable candidate for a chair of philosophy with a historical designation. Dr Jasinowski has published the following main papers. 1) ‘Teorja doboru naturalnego a teorja poznania’ [The theory of natural selection and the theory of cognition] (Philosophical Review, year XIV, 1911); 2) ‘O istocie neoplatonizmu i jego staniwisku w dziejach filozofji’ [On the essence of neo-Platonism and its position in the history of philosophy] (Philosophical Review, year XX, 1917); 3) Die analytische Urteilslehre Leibnizens in ihrem Verhältnis zu seiner Metaphysik [German: The analytical judgment of Leibniz in relation to his metaphysics] (Vienna 1918, doctoral dissertation); 4) ‘Konflikt rozumu i wiary a rozwój dziejowy filozofji’ [The conflict of reason and faith and the historical development of philosophy] (Philosophical Review, year XXIV, 1921); 5) Jedność myśli twórczej w filozofji Leibniza [The unity of creative thought in the philosophy of Leibniz] (Philosophical Review, year XXXII, 1929). – As well, the papers (unfortunately few) delivered as lectures at the Wars. Philosophical Soc. on the topic of the dependence of Spinoza and Leibniz on concepts and currents of mediaeval philosophy, and, finally, his nostrification at the University of Warsaw (during the past academic year) sufficiently justify conviction of the great erudition of Dr J. concerning an extensive range of issues and his ingenuity in perceiving genetic relationships and developmental sequences in the history of the theory of cognition and metaphysics. Dr J. is a highly educated individual, and has to his credit diplomas of two faculties, law (from a Russ. Univ.) and philosophy (in Zürich). His preparation in terms of languages is excellent: he reads fluently in Greek and Latin, and speaks German, French, English, and Russian with complete mastery. He lectured for some time at the Univ. of Lublin, and studied a great deal in French, English, and German libraries during his stay of many years abroad.
    v   In secundo loco [Latin: second place], one might mention Dr Marjan Heitzman, docent at the Jagiellonian Univ., who has distinguished himself with a monograph on the genesis and development of the philosophy of F. Bacon, published in Philosophical Quarterly in volumes VI and VII of 1928 and 1929. In connection with his studies on Bacon, Dr H. published, in the journal The Reformation in Poland in 1928, an article entitled ‘Stanisław Krystanowic i jego polemika z Baconem Werulanskim’ [Stanisław Krystanowic and his polemic against Bacon, i.e. Lord Verulam]. Dr H. knows his specialty, namely the philosophy of Bacon, well and writes very well. In view of the modesty of his academic achievements due to his relative youth and recent habilitation, it would be difficult to talk about his appointment to a chair. For the time being, however, he might be entrusted with lectures commissioned from the budget of the vacant chair.
    v   In the event that the vacant chair is not supposed to possess a historical character, a natural candidate to fill it would be Dr Roman Ingarden, docent of Jan Kazimierz Univ. in Lviv. In the matter of this candidacy, which cannot be accounted as other than serious, if only due to the prominent place Dr I. occupies within the group of phenomenologists who write in German and due to his prolific philosophical production (of which I have read the latest publication known to me with the greatest benefit) – I have not decided to come forward with the initiative, because of the lack of sufficient acquaintance on my part with the work of the phenomenological school and the clear (in any case) and profound differences in our convictions make it difficult for me to understand and adequately assess the value of many (especially the earlier) papers of Dr Ingarden.

    v         v   Warsaw 2/I/1931.

Prof. Dr Tadeusz Kotarbiński, by his own hand


5)         v         v          v         v          v         v        Vilnius, 23 November 1930.

    v   Most Honoured Dean,

    v   In response to your kind letter no. 935 of 10/11, I have the honour to inform you that I consider as more or less suitable candidates the XXX XXX below

  1. Dr Roman Ingarden,
  2. Dr Henryk Ehrenberg,
  3. Dr Bogumił Jasiński [sic; Jasinowski],
  4. Dr Stefan Harassek,
  5. Dr Ludwik Chmaj.–

    v   Among the writings of Dr Ingarden known to me, I would single out in particular Essentiale Fragen [German: Essential Questions], ‘Max Scheler – Bemerkungen zum Problem Idealismus-Realismus’ [German: Max Scheler: Comments on the idealism-realism problem], and ‘Stanowisko teorji poznania w systemie nauk filozoficznych’ [The position of the theory of cognition in the system of philosophical sciences], especially in its German edition, ‘Uber die Gefahr einer Petitio principii in der Erkenntnistheorie’ [German: On the danger of a petitio principii {Latin: ‘begging the question’} in epistemology]. – In these papers, the author has demonstrated not only excellent knowledge of relevant issues, but also independence and high competence in judgment, perspicacity and sharpness of thought, and exemplary exactitude of approach.
    v     v Dr Elzenberg has distinguished himself very remarkably through his paper Podstawy metafizyki Leibniza [Basic metaphysics of Leibniz] as well as Marek Aureljusz [Marcus Aurelius], which, apart from extensive knowledge of the subject, stand out beautifully by virtue of their many-sidedness, subtlety, and finesse. His shorter dissertations are also very worthy of attention: ‘Etyka wyrzeczenia’ [Ethics of renunciation], ‘O funkcji poznawczej wysławiania się obrazowego’ [On the cognitive function of pictorial language], ‘O doniosłości poznawczej myślenia metaforycznego’ [On the cognitive importance of metaphorical thinking].
    v   Dr Jasinowski, through his paper ‘O istocie neoplatonizmu i jego stanowisku w historji filozofji’ [On the essence of neo-Platonism and its position in the history of philosophy] as well as ‘Jedność myśli twórczej w filozofji Leibniza’ [The unity of creative thought in the philosophy of Leibniz] has distinguished himself favourably as a historian of philosophy.
    v Dr Harassek, author of the splendid papers ‘Józef Gołuchowski, zarys życia i filozofji’ [Józef Gołuchowski: an outline of his life and philosophy] and ‘Kant w Polsce przed r. 1830’ [Kant in Poland before 1830], is, I believe, the number one expert on philosophy in Poland and Polish philosophy today. But apart from that, his papers also exhibit a generally high level of academic competence.
    v   Dr Chmaj has been known for a long time as a philologist; for some time he has been working with pleasure (and with good results) on the border between philology and philosophy (‘Przypkowski a Grotius’ [Przypkowski vs Grotius], ‘Bracia Polscy i Spinoza’ [The Polish Brethren and Spinoza] (title quoted inexactly), ‘Zagadnienie trzech faz w rozwoju filozoficznym Kartezjusza’ [The issue of three phases in the philosophical development of Descartes], ‘Kartezjusz i jego filozofja w świetle ostatnich badać’ [Descartes and his philosophy in the light of recent studies]). His most recent major dissertation is of the same nature, i.e. work on the border of philology and philosophy: ‘Rozwój filozoficzny Kartezjusza’ [Development of the philosophy of Descartes], which gained him veniam legendi [Latin: the right to lecture] on the history of philosophy at the Jagiellonian University. This paper, based (as were the previous works of this author) on extensive erudition and complete mastery of philological research methods, does not, however, as it seems to me, demonstrate sufficient penetration into the essence of Descartes’s philosophy, nor the exact reasoning of his ‘mathematism’, which is the most important feature of his position in the history of philosophy.
    v         v         v         v         v         v   I enclose expressions of high esteem

    v         v         v         v         v         v         v         v   At your service

M. Massonius, by his own hand


P.S.    c    I haven’t written about scholars in the positions of professors at state universities, at the University of Lublin, or at the Free Polish University

As above, M. M.



       v         v   Dean, Department of Philos. Of Univ. of Lviv

       v         v   In response to your letter no. 935 of 10 November, regarding candidates for the chair of philosophy, I hereby inform you as follows:
       v         v   As historians of philosophy, I know two candidates, Dr Heitzman and Dr Chmaj. The former is regarded as the successor of Professor Rubczyński, leaving Dr Chmaj, an elderly man who has worked on religious issues, and then for a number of years dealt with the genesis of the philosophy of Descartes. A very diligent and systematic worker, he’s currently in the Netherlands looking for sources on Descartes’s stay there.
       v         v   Of those other than historians, I’d recommend Dr Elzenberg, who was educated in France in refined and profound culture XXX XXX XXX I’d recommend him especially, given that heretofore we have been subject to overly strong German influence and I consider the de-Germanisation of the Polish mentality, specifically in the field of philosophy, to be XXX XXX.

       v         v          v         v   Prof. Dr Władysław Heinrich
Groble 8



Department of Psychology                 v        v           Cracow 10/12/1930.
Jagiellonian University
Cracow, św. Anny 6.

       v                     v   Venerable Dean,

       v         v   I apologise for replying after a certain delay to your confidential letter received on 12/11 – Before expressing my opinion, however, I wished first to become acquainted with the extensive work of one of the candidates (Das literarische Kunstwerk [German: The Literary Work of Art] of Docent Ingarden).
       v         v   I don’t know exactly whether the chair of philosophy in question is intended primarily for the history of philosophy or for philosophy itself.
       v         v   In the first case, as for the historians of philosophy I know, in my opinion, only two docents of this subject at the Jagiell. Univ., namely, Dr Ludwik Chmaj and Dr Stefan Harassek, would come into the picture. Both of these former students of my seminar can already point to significant academic achievements. Mr Chmaj’s interests include a wider range of epochs, more particularly important for the history of phil.; Mr Harassek has heretofore worked exclusively in the field of Polish philosophy in the post-Kantian era.
       v         v   If it’s a question of a chair of systematic philosophy, the choice is very difficult. Among the docents and young employees who are better known to me, I would unconditionally give priority to my youngest student and assistant educated in Kantism and idealism, who has been conducting an excellent seminar under my direction and supervision for several years: Dr Gołembski has so far published only one critical paper (‘O reizmie’ [On reism] in Philsoph. Quart.) and can only be admitted for habilitation in 2 years. However, if the chair must be filled immediately, then – not without certain very serious reservations – I would regard Docent Roman Ingarden, who, following his return from E. Husserl’s school, participated for some time in my seminar, and is also well known to me from several of his own papers and discussions, as the most serious candidate. He is a talented and serious worker, personally very nice, unfortunately somewhat overburdened in terms of direction with the influence of his German school; I don’t know whether too fertile. Also undeniably able is my student, Dr Adam Wiegner, at present in Poznań. I don’t take Docent Dr H. Elzenberg into account, since, going by his doctoral dissertation on Leibniz, the best thing he’s written, I think of him rather as a more literary than philosophical author, and rather as a critic.
       v         v   Please treat my reply as strictly confidential; I venture to express the opinion that in today’s conditions it might be more advisable for the future of philosophy in Poland not to definitively fill the chair at present, but, for the sake of substitute lectures, to continue to invite an outstanding thinker and teacher, which Lviv possesses. Meanwhile, the young people would find an opportunity to speak more fully.

With expressions of the highest esteem.
       v         v   Prof. Dr Tadeusz Grabowski, by his own hand


8)         v         v          v         v          v         v        Cracow 10 December 1930.

       v         v   Most Honoured Dean,

       v         v   In response to letter no. 935 of the Department of Humanities, Jan Kazimierz University, of 10 November 1930 regarding the occupancy of the vacant chair of philosophy, I have the honour, in accordance with the wishes expressed therein, to present the following opinion:
       v         v   Not having checked in time the version – my conviction being heretofore uncertain – of the need of the above-mentioned Department for, first and foremost, such a strictly precise academic force as would be chiefly competent to teach the history of philosophy, I’ve formulated an alternative response.

1) If the appointee need not be a historian of philosophy, I believe that