The issue of neo-kantism and modern criticism is one of the problems discussed by representatives of various philosophical currents in Poland in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. For neo-kantism — with its heteronomy and problems with the delineation of individual positions in it — and, in particular, a strongly undefined modern criticism, practically showing no ideological unity, led to the view that everyone who felt obliged to stick to a scientific discipline, i.e. proclaimed the need to make philosophy (...) more scientific, or only made a superficial accession or acceptance of a general idea, or only some element of it, could find a place within them. It is interesting that even today it is not easy to deal with this problem. It seems that, on the one hand, neo-kantism and modern criticism — primarily in Polish philosophy at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries — can be almost treated synonymously; on the other hand, they are, from one point of view, mutually exclusive options, and, from another, complementary in nature. The article attempts to present, mainly on the basis of two representatives of philosophical thought of that time, viz. Stanisław Kobyłecki and Marian Massonius, the similarities and differences that emerged in the understanding of modern criticism in connection with the publication entitled _Filozofia nowokrytyczna _[Modern Crititical Philosophy], in which “the turn to Kant” was even put into the formula of “modern criticism”. (shrink)

Positivist philosophy is focused on the problem of science and especially on its cognitive results and applications. We can say that Polish intellectual circles of this era glorified science. In her article, Barbara Szotek presents this phenomenon through the figure of Aleksander Świętochowski, the most famous representative and ideologist of scientific positivism. His works best illustrate the evolution of positivist views on science and its social role.