The Warsaw School of Logic (WSL) was the famous branch of the Lviv-Warsaw School (LWS) – the most important movement in the history of Polish philosophy. Logic made the most important field in the activities of the WSL. The aim of this work is to highlight the role and significance of the WSL in the history of logic in the 20th century.

Contains papers from a November 1995 conference held in Eastern Europe, celebrating the centenary of the Lvov-Warsaw school of analytic philosophy. Papers deal with all directions of research undertaken by Polish analytic philosophers. Special attention is paid to logic and comparisons with other philosophical movements, particularly with brentanism. Contains sections on history and comparisons, the ideas of Lesniewski, philosophy of language, logic and the foundations of mathematics, logic and philosophy, and the ontology, epistemology, and philosophy of (...) science. No index. Annotation copyrighted by Book News, Inc., Portland, OR. (shrink)

One can often encounter an opinion that Polish scientific philosophy deserves to be much better known than actually is. This book is thought as a response to such a claim. The papers collected in this volume are divided into two parts: Background and Influence and History and Systematics. However, there is no sharp borderline between themes which are touched in both parts. Generally speaking, all papers of the first part relate the Lvov-Warsaw School to some philosophical movements (...) external to it whereas the papers collected in the second one focus on internal issues connected with the school . Since the Polish school of mathematical logic is much better known than the Polish analytic philosophy we decided to omit here any treatment of the former. Thus, this collection centers on purely philosophical matters. We projected this volume not as an exhaustive panorama of Polish analytic philosophy but rather as a series of essays on particular persons or topic. As a result one can find here papers on Twardowski. Ajdukiewicz, Kotarbinski, Tarski and Lukasiewicz as well as on ethics on science, nominalism, and the methodology of psychology. We hope that this book will contribute to a better knowledge and evaluation of Polish achievements in analytic philosophy. We would like to express our gratitude to Professor Leszek Nowak, the editor-in-chief of Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, who initiated the idea of the collection and helped in its preparation. (shrink)

This paper presents the link between Arthur N. Prior and logicians that belonged to the Lvov-Warsaw School. Although certain members of the Lvov-Warsaw School influenced Prior’s views, the amount and the form of the impact are still under discussion. Prior also cooperated with some of them in the development of his systems of logic. This paper focuses on four main areas in which Prior admitted adopting ideas from the Lvov-Warsaw School: systems of propositional (...) logic, the history of logic, modal and temporal logic and ontology. Prior’s published works as well as his correspondence, which is stored in Prior’s Nachlass, are used to describe the influence. (shrink)

Maria Kokoszyńska-Lutmanowa was one of the most outstanding female representatives of the Lvov-Warsaw School. After achieving her PhD in philosophy under Kazimierz Twardowski’s supervision, she was Kazimierz Ajdukiewicz’s assistant. She was also influenced by Alfred Tarski whose results in semantics she analyzed and popularized. After World War II, she got the chair of logic in University of Wrocław and she organized studies in logic in this academic center. In the 1930s, Kokoszyńska kept in contact with members of the (...) Vienna Circle and became a kind of connecting factor between Polish logicians and the Viennese group. In Poland, she presented the views of members of the Vienna Circle. In Vienna, she emphasized the results of her Polish colleagues. In the present paper, some of Kokoszyńska’s results connected with the matters discussed in the Vienna Circle are presented, namely with the problem of metaphysics, the status of logic and the idea of unity of science. (shrink)

Recenzja książki: B. Skarga, Ortodoksja i rewizja w pozytywizmie francuskim, M. Pańków, ser. Dzieła zebrane Barbary Skargi, t. 3, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN - Fundacja na Rzecz Myślenia im. Barbary Skargi, Warszawa 2016, ss. 496.

The volume aims to show the variety of research currents of the Lvov-Warsaw School and the ways in which these currents are developed today. The content of the book is divided into three parts: “Logic and Semiotics”, “Metaphysics and Ontology”, and “Psychology and Sociology”.

This volume is dedicated to Barbara Skarga -- her works, profile and biography. It is a unique character in the Polish intellectual life, but also virtually unknown abroad, except a meager milieu of her reeadership in France. Dubbed 'the first lady of Polish philosophy' for a good reason, she contributed not only to [the] shape of Polish philosophy but to the style of public debate too. The problem areas initiating her philosophy stemmed from the group of scholars called the (...) class='Hi'>Warsaw school of history of ideas' with its flagship names such as Leszek Kolakowski, Brinisław Baczko, or Andrzej Walicki. On the other hand, her output originates from the extraordinary and dramatic events of her life. The philosophical outpout of Barbara Skarga is thus a proof of continuity and longevity of an important tradition of the 20th century Polish Philosophy. (shrink)

We take into account two areas of the logical research of the Lvov-Warsaw School. First, we consider a new approach to research in the history of logic introduced and practiced by Łukasiewicz and some of his followers. In this style of doing history of logic, the knowledge of original philosophical and logical texts was combined with competence in modern logic. This method resulted in many important discoveries both in history and in logic and philosophy. At (...) the same time, we pay attention to contemporary historical research devoted to the logic created by the School itself. In this context, we present an overview of the six papers included in the special issue ‘Logic and its History in the Lvov-Warsaw School’. These papers were presented at an international symposium, ‘History in/of the Lvov-Warsaw School’, held in October 2022 in Warsaw, and they cover various aspects of historical-logical and logical achievements of the School. They concern topics from history of ancient logic, history of modern proof theory, and the issues of applying logic to philosophy and theology in the same way as the one implemented at the Lvov-Warsaw School. (shrink)

Justification of theorems plays a vital role in any rational human activity. It is indispensable in science. The deductive method of justifying theorems is used in all sciences and it is the only method of justifying theorems in deductive disciplines. It is based on the notion of proof, thus it is a method of proving theorems. In the Warsaw School of Logic (WSL) – the famous branch of the Lvov-Warsaw School (LWS) – two types of the (...) method: axiomatic deduction method and natural deduction method were developed and practiced. In this paper, both of these methods are briefly discussed with an emphasis on their historical, groundbreaking significance for logic. The axiomatic method by means of rejection (proposed by Jan Łukasiewicz – a co-creator of the WSL), which is the method of the so-called rejection proof (rejection/refutation method) in logical systems and the proving method of generalized natural deduction, which is a hybrid deduction–refutation method of proving theorems, are also outlined in the paper. The author discusses their historical significance. This paper also contains a brief mention of the most significant results which the application of the discussed methods introduced into contemporary scientific research, not only logical one. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to contribute to the debate on the relation between phenomenology and philosophical anthropology by analyzing it in the selected, theoretical as well as historical contexts. The author focuses primarily on the problem of Edmund Husserl’s criticism of anthropologism and analyzes the practical meaning of the rejection by him of anthropology as a true foundation of philosophy. The thesis of the paper is that already by rejecting anthropologism in the logic and theory of knowledge, Husserl (...) presupposed some idea of philosophical anthropology in the “foundational” sense he criticized, and that this implicit idea was pursued by him not only from pure theoretical reason. In reference to Leszek Kołakowski and the methodology of the Warsaw School of the History of Ideas, which he applies in his interpretation of the idea of phenomenology, the author of the article attempts, unlike Kołakowski, to reveal not only the “religious”, but also the specific political meaning of this idea. What is argued here is that the only possible reconciliation between anti-anthropologism on the one hand and the outspoken humanism of transcendental phenomenology on the other lies in the adoption by Husserl of Johann Gottlieb Fichte’s ideal of humanity as its practical, worldview framework. The practical, if not directly political, motif of Husserl’s radical criticism of anthropologism is, in author’s interpretation, Husserl’s attempt to answer, in the reference to this ideal, to the main political question of his times as consisting in the rising racist and anti-Semitic tendencies in the German naturalistic anthropology. (shrink)

The article presents the results of several years of analytical and reconstruction efforts carried out by the author who focused on archival writings by Mieczysław Wallis, a representative of the second generation of the Lvov-Warsaw School, which were to a large extent unknown to readers. Wallis’ intellectual profile has been associated so far mostly with his writings on art criticism, aesthetics, theory, and history of art. In the light of painstaking, multistage research of the large collection of (...) his unpublished archival works, it turned out that the current perception of his intellectual preferences and academic achievements is too narrow and simplified. What is especially little known and insufficiently edited are his notes on philosophical anthropology, discussing the question of human existence and human activity in the world. They contain a unique philosophical program based on the axiological concept called psychological relationism. Its main category is the “homo creativus” approach. Wallis’ intellectual program is a valuable contribution to the achievements of the Lvov-Warsaw School and, in general, to the Polish philosophy of the 20th century. (shrink)

This is a collection of new investigations and discoveries on the history of a great tradition, the Lvov-Warsaw School of logic , philosophy and mathematics, by the best specialists from all over the world. The papers range from historical considerations to new philosophical, logical and mathematical developments of this impressive School, including applications to Computer Science, Mathematics, Metalogic, Scientific and Analytic Philosophy, Theory of Models and Linguistics.

We classify two of Bertrand Russell's theories of events within the point-free ontology. The first of such approaches was presented informally by Russell in ‘The World of Physics and the World of Sense’ (Lecture IV in Our Knowledge of the External World of 1914). Based on this theory, Russell sketched ways to construct instants as collections of events. This paper formalizes Russell's approach from 1914. We will also show that in such a reconstructed theory, we obtain all axioms of Russell's (...) second theory from 1936 and all axioms of Thomason's theory of events from 1989. Russell's work certainly influenced the works of Stanisław Leśniewski, his student Alfred Tarski, and Czesław Lejewski – prominent members of the Lvov-Warsaw School (LWS). We see our work in the tradition of the research of Leśniewski and Tarski. Building on the technical tools developed in this environment and in the spirit of the traditional research of the LWS, we engage here, in particular, with two classic works by Russell on fundamental ontology. (shrink)

The thesis of the paper holds that some future developments of argumentation theory may be inspired by the rich logico-methodological legacy of the Lvov–Warsaw School (LWS), the Polish research movement that was most active from 1895 to 1939. As a selection of ideas of the LWS which exploit both formal and pragmatic aspects of the force of argument, we present: Ajdukiewicz’s account of reasoning and inference, Bocheński’s analyses of superstitions or dogmas, and Frydman’s constructive approach to legal (...) interpretation. This paper does not aim at exhaustive elaboration of any of these topics or their usefulness in current discussions within argumentation theory. Rather, we intend to indicate chosen directions of a potentially fruitful research program for the emerging Polish School of Argumentation which would consist in application of methods and conceptions elaborated by the LWS to selected open problems of contemporary research on argumentation. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Ideas 62.4 (2001) 577-592 [Access article in PDF] Eclecticism and the History of Ideas Donald R. Kelley "What we call the history of ideas," Joseph Mazzeo wrote in in 1972, "itself has a history." 1 In this country the history of ideas in the past century has been associated with the American philosopher and founder (...) of this journal, Arthur O. Lovejoy, and his epigones and critics. However, this field has an earlier history sub literam, going back almost two centuries, and a still deeper prehistory before the coinage of the phrase, traceable at least indirectly back to antiquity. The purpose of this essay is to trace some aspects of one intellectual tradition out of which the history of ideas has, knowingly or not, emerged.In 1829 Victor Cousin gave a diagnosis of and his prescription for philosophy in the wake of one revolution and on the threshold of another. He saw just three possibilities: either it could renounce its independence and submit again to authority, it could keep on retracing the circle of obsolescent systems, or--and this was his solution--it could "disengage what is true in each of these systems, and thus construct a philosophy superior to all systems [and] shall be neither this or that philosophy in its essence and in its unity." This procedure, "to select in all what appears to be true and good, and consequently everlasting,--this, in a single word, is ECLECTICISM." Moreover, Cousin added, "[i]f this philosophy is to be Eclectic, it must also be sustained by the history of philosophy."How had Cousin come upon this program? In December 1815, in the first year of both the Restoration Monarchy and his teaching at the École Normale Supérieure, he was lecturing on the history of philosophy. In post-revolutionary France this was a field in great disarray, and Cousin looked back to the great schools of the earlier generation, noting three in particular--the French, the [End Page 577] Scottish, and the German traditions, represented respectively by Condillac, Reid, and Kant. "It would be an interesting and instructive study," he told his enthusiastic young students, "to examine the weaknesses of these schools by engaging one with another and by selecting their various merits in the context of a great eclecticism which would contain and surpass all three." 2Over the next three decades this doctrine was publicized and extended by Cousin's many scholarly publications, by the still more famous lectures he gave after returning to his chair of philosophy in 1828, by his many international contacts and disciples, and by his later public career as minister of education. 3 For half a century before his death in 1867 Cousin had an unparalleled intellectual influence as virtually the "official philosopher" in France, with Eclecticism being widely regarded as a "state philosophy," 4 and translations of his works extending his renown into other parts of Europe and this country. In defending his achievements and hegemonic position Cousin claimed an absolute originality and a unique truth-value for his ideas. Eclecticism had not been drawn from German sources, he protested in 1855. "It was born spontaneously in our own spirit [notre esprit] from the spectacle of the resounding conflicts and the hidden harmonies of the three great philosophical schools of the eighteenth century," he declared. "Thus," he concluded, "eclecticism is a French doctrine and peculiar to us." 5Historically speaking, however, nothing could be further from the truth--or indeed further from the premises of the earlier eclectic tradition on which Cousin knowingly drew. The defining characteristic of his philosophy was its dependence not only on the three schools he recognized in his early years of teaching but on the whole history of philosophy from its Greek and especially Platonic beginnings, to which Cousin himself devoted much of his historical and philological [End Page 578] scholarship. That Eclecticism was a sort of higher plagiarism was admitted by Cousin himself: "What I recommend," Cousin said in 1817, "is an enlightened eclecticism which, judging with equity, and even with benevolence... (shrink)

This volume is a result of the international symposium “The Tradition of the Lvov-Warsaw School in European Culture,” which took place in Warsaw, Poland, September 2015. It collects almost all the papers presented at the symposium as well as some additional ones. The contributors include scholars from Austria, the Netherlands, Ireland, and Poland. The papers are devoted to the history and reception of the Lvov-Warsaw School, a Polish branch of analytic philosophy. They present the (...) School’s achievements as well as its connections to other analytic groups. The contributors also show how the tradition of the School is developed contemporarily. The title will appeal to historians of analytic philosophy as well as historians of philosophy in Central Europe. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Notes and Discussions METHODOLOGY IN THE HISTORY OF IDEAS: THE CASE OF PIERRE CHARRON Affanities, influences, borrowings, innovations, traditions, consistency--these are some of the key concepts of the time-honored and probably still dominant approach to the history of ideas. Scholars who seek to understand and interpret the philosophy and literature of the past in these terms tend to pay little attention to the social and (...) institutional factors which constituted the working conditions under which the ideas were conceived, articulated and disseminated; and it is precisely on those grounds that the traditional school has been increasingly challenged, over the past several decades, by historians (myself among others) who are convinced that, apart from their social context, the ideas themselves are virtually incomprehensible. A recent article on Pierre Charron by Maryanne Cline Horowitz may serve to illustrate some of the questions raised by these differences in method. At the close of her article, Horowitz explains the assumptions upon which she has conducted her investigation. Citing Peter Gay's interpretation of Ernst Cassirer, she affirms that "the critic begins the process of understanding a philosopher's work by searching for a dynamic center of thought. He must regard doctrines not as a series of discrete positions but as facets of a single point of view. The critic's equipment must therefore include the gift of empathy: he must sympathetically enter--indeed, relive---the thinker's world of ideas.''1 Following her own insight into the spirit of De la sagesse, and supporting it, of course, with a display of textual evidence, Horowitz argues that Richard Popkin was wrong to lay exclusive stress upon Charron's rejection of Aristotelian epistemology from the perspective of Pyrrhonian scepticism. "I think," she says, "that Charron's De la sagesse is based primarily on Stoic, rather than Sceptic principles." Although I agree in general with the main thrust of Popkin's thesis, I too have been critical of his failure to give sufficient weight to the neo-Stoic dements of Charron's thought. Hence it is not this conclusion to which I take exception.2 Charron has, from the very beginning, been found to have said a great many things and been subjected to a wide variety of interpretations. Horowitz emphasizes "the seeds of virtue and knowledge [as] the dynamic center of De la sagesse"--a view which may appear perfectly plausible to some readers. But it can never compel widespread conviction, for the simple reason that it is impossible for a twentieth-century critic to enter--unaided--into a world of ideas now part of a remote past. A book written nearly four centuries ago is not immediately perspicuous. Before trying on our neo-idealist wings and taking flight into the empyrean of late Renaissance moral treatises, we would do well to explore as many as possible of the following questions: Just who was our author? For whom did he write? Who x p. Gay, Introduction to E. Cassirer, The Question of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (Bloomington, 1963), p. 22, cited by M. C. Horowitz, "Pierre Charron's View of the Source of Wisdom," Journal o! the History of Philosophy, IX, 4 (October, 1971), 457. 2 A. Soman, "Pierre Charron: A Revaluation," BibliothOque d'Humanisme et Renaissance, XXXII (January, 1970), 57 n. 3. [495] 496 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY in fact did read him? and how did his readers react? And what did our author think of their reactions.'?s Horowitz does not, apparently, give high priority to such questions. For rhetorical purposes, she readily agrees with Eugene Rice that "Pierre Charron's De la sagesse is the most important Renaissance treatise on wisdom." (Important to whom? and from what point of view? The criteria are not at all clear.) She assumes that Charron's epistemology was consistent, and that the second edition of 1604 represents a clarification of, or advance over, the first edition of 1601. (There is no historical evidence for making either assumption.) And she does not seem to entertain the possibility that Popkin could still be right about the impact of Charron's Pyrrhonian scepticism on the libertins Jrudits, although Charron may never in fact have been a Pyrrhonian sceptic.4 These are... (shrink)

In this paper the author discloses the concept of a worldview and clarifies it’s meaning for humans from the Ukrainian representatives’ the Lviv-Warsaw School (LWS) (1895-1939) point of view. The subject of the article is determined on the one hand by the contemporary “battle for the philosophy” in Ukraine and on the other hand – by the attention of the LWS philosophers to the question of the essence of the worldview, caused by positivism that denied autonomy and peculiarity (...) of man’s spiritual world and defined metaphysics as “conceptual poetry” or religious faith. The analysis of philosophical-pedagogical reflections on the worldview by Ilarion Sventsitskyi, Havryil Kostelnyk, Stepan Baley, Yakym Yarema, Oleksandr Kulchytskyi has been done in the paper. At the same time, a comparative analysis with the views of the Polish representatives of the LWS on the same topic, namely, with the views of Kazimierz Twardowsky, Yan Lukasevich and Tadeusz Kotarbinsky was conducted. It was found that the Ukrainian LWS representatives’ “worldview” is man’s desperate impulse to embrace the world as a whole. The worldview is person’s step to the highest living goods: wisdom and happiness. Such LWS philosophers’ approach to the essence of the worldview is based on a natural impulse of an unselfish desire to know the mystery of the world. Therefore, every human being has the ability to reflect the world in his/her own “I”. Special attention is paid to the fact that the representatives of the LWS defined the “worldview” as independent and autonomous. And only under such circumstances it can guarantee to a person cognition of the truth and creating the moral ideal. That, according to the Ukrainian scientists, can be promoted by acquaintance with the history of worldviews – metaphysics. This, in turn, leads to the interest of the general public, as well as its introduction into the curricula of secondary and higher schools. Undoubtedly, this involves a well-balanced approach to its study, which does not include learning other people’s views on the world, but promoting the design of their own. (shrink)

In March 1930, Alfred Tarski visited Vienna and delivered few lectures which presented the achievements of the logical branch of the Lvov-Warsaw School. Rudolf Carnap was one of the most careful listeners of these lectures. The same year, in November, Carnap, invited by the Warsaw Philosophical Society, visited Warsaw where he gave three lectures. This was an opportunity for him to meet such members the Lvov-Warsaw School as Jan Łukasiewicz, Stanisław Leśniewski, Tadeusz Kotarbiński, and (...) others. Many years later, Carnap reminisced that he left Warsaw “grateful for many stimulating suggestions and the fruitful exchange of ideas”.In the paper, I reconstruct the details of Carnap’s visit in Warsaw based on Carnap’s diaries, reports published in the Polish Journal Ruch Filozoficzny [Philosophical Movement] and some correspondence. I also discuss some problems presented by Carnap in Warsaw lectures and compare his views to the positons of members of the Lvov-Warsaw School. These problems are: the foundations of psychology, the status of metaphysical sentences, and the character of reasoning. (shrink)

Originally published in 1972.This book considers the actual development of infant schools and education in Britain against the background of industrialization and social change, making clear how this development was influenced by the ideas of particular theorists from both the Continent and England.

The article explores the concept of scientific philosophy as understood by members of the Lvov-Warsaw School. The author argues that according to Twardowski and his students, philosophy should be done as an exact discipline which ought to be pursued in critical and collaborative spirit. Selected views on scientific philosophy are analyzed, including ideas of Ajdukiewicz, Zawirski, and Dąmbska. It is claimed that though the conception of scientific philosophy is beset with crucial and fundamental ambiguities, it was far (...) more important for the Lvov-Warsaw School than the idea of analytic philosophy. (shrink)

Leading authors in their fields present an interdisciplinary panorama of vital themes of the philosophy of language and track their historical origins. This book gives new life to historical ideas and additional depth to current debates.

The problem of precise characterisation of traditional forms of reasoning applied in mathematics was independently investigated and successfully resolved by Jaśkowski and Gentzen in 1934. However, there are traces of earlier interests in this field exhibited by the members of the Lvov-Warsaw School. We focus on the results obtained by Jaśkowski and Leśniewski. Jaśkowski provided the first formal system of natural deduction in 1926. Leśniewski also demonstrated in some of his papers how to construct proofs in accordance with (...) intuitively correct principles. (shrink)

Zygmunt Zawirski, a member of the Lwow-Warsaw Philosophical School, in 1927-28 published an extensive paper (in three parts) devoted to the critical examination of the eternal return hypothesis - the idea that the history of the universe is fundamentally a cyclic process. After presenting the development of this idea throughout the ages Zawirski discusses arguments on its behalf coming mainly from the second law of thermodynamics and from the Poincaré recurrence theorem. Zawirski's criticism is confronted with the (...) present state of art. in this domain. Three new theoretical inputs are taken into account: first, our present knowledge of the global structure of space-time geometries with closed timelike curves; second, some results of relativistic thermodynamics; third, Tipler's no-return theorem (relativistic counterpart of the Poincaré theorem). Our knowledge regarding the eternal return, although not less hypothetical, is more „formalized” and more sophisticated than it was in Zawirski's time. (shrink)

The Twenty-fifth Congress of the CPSU on the basis of Marxist-Leninist theory, analyzing the experience and results of previous work and defining the tasks of the next period of struggle for the building of communism, stressed that "the problem of ideological struggle increasingly comes to the fore, and the truth about socialism is the most powerful tool in this struggle.".

“The influence of [Kazimierz] Twardowski on modern philosophy in Poland is all-pervasive. Twardowski instilled in his students a passion for clarity [. . .] and seriousness. He taught them to regard philosophy as a collaborative effort, a matter of disciplined discussion and argument, and he encouraged them to train themselves thoroughly in at least one extra-philosophical discipline and to work together with scientists from other fields, both inside Poland and internationally. This led above all [. . .] to collaborations with (...) mathematicians, so that the Lvov school of philosophy would gradually evolve into the Warsaw school of logic [. . .]. Twardowski taught his students, too, to respect and to pursue serious research in the history of philosophy, an aspect of the tradition of philosophy on Polish territory which is illustrated in such disparate works as [Jan] Łukasiewicz’s ground-breaking monograph on the law of non-contradiction in Aristotle and [Władysław] Tatarkiewicz’s highly influential multi-volume histories of philosophy and aesthetics. [. . .] The term ‘Polish philosophy’ is a misnomer [. . .] for Polish philosophy is philosophy per se; it is part and parcel of the mainstream of world philosophy – simply because [. . .] it meets international standards of training, rigour, professionalism and specialization.”– Barry Smith, “Why Polish Philosophy does Not Exist”. (shrink)

This article offers a reinterpretation of the origins and character of the so-called ‘Cambridge School’ in the history of political thought by reconstructing the intellectual background to J.G.A. Pocock's 1962 essay ‘The History of Political Thought: A Methodological Enquiry’, typically regarded as the first statement of a ‘Cambridge’ approach. I argue that neither linguistic philosophy nor the celebrated work of Peter Laslett exerted a major influence on Pocock's work between 1948 and 1962. Instead, I emphasise the importance (...) of Pocock's interest in the history of historiography and of his doctoral supervisor, Herbert Butterfield. By placing Pocock's intellectual development in these contexts, I suggest, the autonomy of diverse versions of the ‘Cambridge’ approach can more readily be perceived. (shrink)

中國 陝西師範大學 出版總社가 출판하고, 林樂昌이 주편한 ≪關學源流≫는 關學史 연구의 방법을 새롭게 탐색하는 關學史 방면의 전문 저술이다. 이 책은 중국학계에서 유행하고 있는 宋나라 멸망 후의 關學 ‘소멸론’과 關學이 宋․金․元․明․淸을 거치면서 그 전통을 지속적으 로 계승해 왔다는 ‘존재론’을 함께 검토하면서, 關學史가 ‘단절된 측면도 있고 지속된 측면도 있는’ 변천 과정이라는 관점을 제시하였다. 그리고 이를 통해 關學史의 縱的 변천맥락을 새롭 게 정리하였고, 晩明시기 馮從吾가 關學을 규정하면서 ‘關中理學’으로 분류한 것에 대해 이것은 關中지역 내의 理學 분파인 關學學派와 理學의 다른 다양한 갈래의 사상들을 혼동한 것이라는 점을 지적하였다. (...) 이 책은 張載 학문의 풍부한 내용을 關學의 근원으로 삼고, 그 근원의 완전한 내용을 후세 關學 전승의 기준으로 제시함으로써 일종의 새로운 關中理學의 橫的 구조관계를 확립하였다. ≪關學源流≫의 독창적인 관점은 ‘兩原’과 ‘兩基’를 특색으로 하는 방법에 있다. 이 책에서는 이러한 두 가지 방법을 사용하여 ‘關學’ 개념을 재논증함으로써 關學史의 변천맥락 과 關中理學의 구조관계라는 이중적인 시각을 上下縱觀, 左右橫論의 방법을 통해 關學史 연구 를 위한 완전한 새로운 이치로 구축하였다. (shrink)

Słownik języka polskiego PWN odnotowuje m.in. trzy znaczenia słowa „fenomen”: (1) rzadkie, niezwykłe zjawisko; (2) osoba wyjątkowa, niezwykle uzdolniona; (3) fakt empiryczny będący punktem wyjścia badań naukowych. W tytule nie chodzi o „fenomen” w sensie drugim, chociaż do Szkoły Lwowsko-Warszawskiej należało wiele osób wyjątkowych i niezwykle uzdolnionych, do których z powodzeniem można odnosić słowo „fenomen” w tym sensie. Tytułowy zwrot „Fenomen Szkoły Lwowsko-Warszawskiej” sygnalizuje natomiast, z jednej strony, że książka zdaje sprawę z badań naukowych nad pewnym złożonym „faktem empirycznym” – (...) nad pewną formacją intelektualną wraz z jej dorobkiem. Z drugiej strony tytuł wskazuje na rzadkość i niezwykłość Szkoły: to, że była ona fenomenem nie tylko w dziejach Polski, lecz także w dziejach kultury in toto. Oto kilka faktów, które się na fenomen Szkoły – w tym drugim sensie – składają. Za początek Szkoły przyjmuje się rok 1895, kiedy jej założyciel, Kazimierz Twardowski, przybył z Wiednia do Lwowa i już wkrótce wypromował pierwszych doktorów. Wśród wychowanków (doktorantów) Twardowskiego było ponad dwudziestu przyszłych profesorów tytularnych, którzy w dwudziestoleciu międzywojennym zajęli większość katedr filozofii, logiki i psychologii, ale oddziałali także na inne dyscypliny – takie jak literaturoznawstwo, muzykologia, filologia klasyczna etc. Twardowski zmarł w 1938 roku, a za koniec Szkoły niektórzy przyjmują rok 1939 – istotnie II wojna światowa spowodowała spustoszenie w szeregach przedstawicieli Szkoły, a jeszcze silniejszy cios stanowił dla niej okres stalinizmu. Jednakże Kilka wybitnych postaci Szkoły – takich jak Kazimierz Ajdukiewicz, Tadeusz Czeżowski, Izydora Dąmbska, Tadeusz Kotarbiński, Stefan Swieżawski czy Władysław Tatarkiewicz – działało jeszcze wiele lat po wojnie, wychowując kolejne pokolenia w duchu właściwego Szkole antyirracjonalizmu. Wielu spośród autorów tekstów do niniejszego tomu to przedstawiciele młodszych pokoleń Szkoły Lwowsko-Warszawskiej sensu largo. Spoiwem Szkoły był nie pewien zespół idei, który wyznawaliby jej członkowie, lecz pewne postulaty metodologiczne oraz pewien zestaw wartości, które były w Szkole akceptowane przez kolejne pokolenia. O tych postulatach metodologicznych i o tym zestawie wartości mówią szczegółowo autorzy tekstów tu zamieszczonych. Ogromnemu wpływowi Szkoły na kulturę polską towarzyszyła recepcja wyników osiąganych przez jej członków za granicą. Naszym „towarem eksportowym” była szeroko rozumiana logika (logiki wielowartościowe i metalogika Łukasiewicza, gramatyka kategorialna Ajdukiewicza, koncepcja prawdy Tarskiego). Wiele osiągnięć członków Szkoły w innych dziedzinach zagranica odkrywa dla siebie dopiero dziś i wyniki te budzą podziw u tych, którzy się z nimi stykają. Ideą stojącą za powstaniem „Fenomenu Szkoły Lwowsko-Warszawskiej” była chęć ukazania Szkoły w jak najszerszej perspektywie, także przez pryzmat mniej znanych, choć ważnych postaci i osiągnięć. Ze wstępu Książkę można zamówić tutaj: https://ksiegarnia.academicon.pl/glowna/187-fenomen-szkoly-lwowsko-warszawskiej-miekka-oprawa--97883 62475193.html. (shrink)

The sacred and the revolution Leszek Kołakowski and othersThe author examines the relationship between the sphere of the sacred and the phenomenon of the revolution. He points to the distinctiveness of Leszek Kołakowski’s position as compared to the views articulated by other representatives of the so-called Warsaw school of the history of ideas. He claims that Kołakowski’s philosophical programme, which takes into account the sacred and mythical dimension of the socio-political diagnoses, can help us to understand (...) the Russian Revolution of 1917 as well as other revolutionary movements and processes of the 20th century. He demonstrates that the sacred is an inherent aspect of the revolutionary mentality. Also, he argues that the ideologies which turned against religion in the name of the struggle with religious superstitions, in the end became quasi-religious. As a matter of fact, the revolutionary utopia may be perceived as a kind of crypto-religion involving such elements of the mythical thinking as a belief in the cognition of history, an assumption that the latter may be started anew, a belief in the possibility of the secular eschatology, etc. (shrink)

Profesor Andrzej Walicki, born in 1930, is a historian of philosophy and social thought connected with the so called „Warsaw School of the History of Ideas" prevalent during the 1960s. His field of specialization is the history of Russian and Polish thought and also that of Marxist philosophy. Until 1981, he was professor at the Institute of Philosophy and Sociology PAN. During the time of martial law, Walicki was in Australia as a visiting professor of (...) the Australian National University of Canberra. In 1986, he started working at the University of Notre Dame in the USA as chief of the chair of the history of ideas, where he continued to work until 1999, the vear of his retirement. (shrink)

Profesor Andrzej Walicki, born in 1930, is a historian of philosophy and social thought connected with the so called „Warsaw School of the History of Ideas" prevalent during the 1960s. His field of specialization is the history of Russian and Polish thought and also that of Marxist philosophy. Until 1981, he was professor at the Institute of Philosophy and Sociology PAN. During the time of martial law, Walicki was in Australia as a visiting professor of (...) the Australian National University of Canberra. In 1986, he started working at the University of Notre Dame in the USA as chief of the chair of the history of ideas, where he continued to work until 1999, the vear of his retirement. (shrink)

1. First, a short anecdote. In the mid-1980s, Professor Jerzy Pogonowski gave a series of lectures entitled The Lvov-Warsaw School at the Institute of Philosophy at the Adam Mickiewicz University i...

SummaryThe problem of conquests and territorial expansion, including their interpretation, evaluation, and legitimisation, has been crucial for European national historiographies. Consequently, attempts by the Holy Roman emperors, particularly of the Saxon and Hohenstaufen dynasties, to control Italy and Burgundy were hotly debated among nineteenth-century German historians, while Poland's union with Lithuania, and the annexation of the vast territories of the east which followed, was a central topic for Polish historians of the time. Modern historians of historiography in both countries have (...) carefully analysed these narratives, emphasising their ideological and political contexts, such as their involvement in the Grossdeutsch versus Kleindeutsch controversy and the controversy between the so-called Cracow and Warsaw historical schools. In this paper I propose a comparative analysis of these two discourses which dealt with analogical issues and, as I demonstrate, developed with a parallel dynamic. Such an analysis, I argue, allows an escape from the paradigm of national exceptionalism, and the discovery of what was typical or, perhaps, constitutive of the discourse on territorial expansion of the time, instead of focusing on the uniqueness of the national context. This analysis embraces the conceptualisation, argumentation, and rhetoric of those nineteenth-century German and Polish historians discussing the expansion of the medieval Holy Empire and early-modern Poland. Moreover, it locates their interpretations within an international context of a broader Western historiographical tradition, involving issues of domination, cultural transfer, and colonialism. Finally, it examines the parallel mechanism of searching for, advocating, and perpetuating the idea of uniqueness of national history. (shrink)

History of ideas "duality" is Mr. Li Jinquan the focus of attention problems. Articles by examining his case studies the history of thought, school of analysis, the overall concept through the three levels of detailed analysis, to explore his object throughout the study in the "philosophy of integrating" approach orientation and the "heritage and innovation" cultural standpoint, and shows that he contemplation of the modern practice of traditional character, the close integration of academic learning and social (...) spirit of the people. Mr. Jin-quan Li pay close attention to a focal question which is "dual nature" of history of thinking. The article will review the detailed analyse about three arrangments of ideals which consists of individual research, analyse on school of thought and the whole history of thought. And will search for the method of the fusion of philosoghy and history, the successive arid innovative cultural stand which ran through his research. And will delineate his practical character of using tradition take care of modernization and the scholcal spirit of combining study with life and society. (shrink)

In this article, Józef M. Bocheński is presented as a representative of the methodological tendencies of the Lvov–Warsaw School. Special attention is given to the reconstructive analysis of concepts, the categorial trait of this procedure, and examples of its application by Bocheński. First, some historical and substantial arguments are presented for including Bocheński in the LWS. Secondly, the procedure of the reconstruction of concepts applied in the LWS is characterized. Then the attention turns to the categorial trait of (...) the analysis as indicated by Bocheński. Finally, two examples of Bocheński’s categorial reconstruction of concepts are presented. The article ends with a recapitulation and general remarks. (shrink)

The interview with one of the founders of the Tartu–Moscow school, semiotician Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov (b. 1929) from August 2010, describes V. V. Ivanov’s opinions of several scholars and their work (including Evgenij Polivanov, Mikhail Bakhtin, Andrej Kolmogorov, Nikolaj Marr etc.), his relationships with his father Vsevolod Ivanov, as well as V. V. Ivanov’s views on the past and future of semiotics, with some emphasis on neurosemiotics, zoosemiotics, semiotics of culture, cybernetics, history of linguistics, study and protection of (...) small languages. The interview also deals with V. V. Ivanov’s book Even and Odd. (shrink)

The interview with one of the founders of the Tartu–Moscow school, semiotician Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov (b. 1929) from August 2010, describes V. V. Ivanov’s opinions of several scholars and their work (including Evgenij Polivanov, Mikhail Bakhtin, Andrej Kolmogorov, Nikolaj Marr etc.), his relationships with his father Vsevolod Ivanov, as well as V. V. Ivanov’s views on the past and future of semiotics, with some emphasis on neurosemiotics, zoosemiotics, semiotics of culture, cybernetics, history of linguistics, study and protection of (...) small languages. The interview also deals with V. V. Ivanov’s book Even and Odd. (shrink)

Author: Koepke Ireneusz Title: ANDRZEJ WALICKI AND “WARSAW SCHOOL OF THE HISTORY OF IDEAS” (Andrzej Walicki i „warszawska szkoła historyków (historii) idei”) Source: Filo-Sofija year: 2005, vol:.5, number: 2005/1, pages: 259-276 Keywords: ANDRZEJ WALICKI, WARSAW SCHOOL OF THE HISTORY OF IDEAS Discipline: PHILOSOPHY Language: POLISH Document type: ARTICLE Publication order reference (Primary author’s office address): E-mail: www:This article is an attempt of presenting Andrzej Walicki connections with the so called Warsaw (...) class='Hi'>School of the History of Ideas and his research on basic methodological issues created by this “school”, which are linked with the history of ideas and the history of philosophy. The most important are research rules which has been used by A. Walicki, and their consequences on his intellectual work as well as some critical remarks. (shrink)

The history of ideas deals with the elemental unit-ideas which for Lovejoy are components of systems distinguished by their patterns. Special histories explain how a particular form of human history developed. General histories draw on special histories to document or explain social contexts. Since patterns influence philosophers, the history of ideas contributes little to the history of philosophy, a discontinuous strand within a period's continuous intellectual history. By accepting cultural pluralism, denying the (...) monistic position that there always are internal connections among all or some strands of intellectual and cultural history, both continuity and change in philosophy can be best understood. (shrink)

Islamic philosophy has often been treated as being largely of historical interest, belonging to the history of ideas rather than to philosophical study. This volume successfully overturns that view. Emphasizing the living nature and rich diversity of the subject, it examines the main thinkers and schools of thought, discusses the key concepts of Islamic philosophy and covers a vast geographical area. This indispensable reference tool includes a comprehensive bibliography and an extensive index.

Presenting a detailed and critical account of the ideas that underpin the practice of educational leadership, this book moves from abstracted accounts of knowledge claims based on studying field outputs, towards the biographies and practices of those actively involved in the production and use of field knowledge. It presents a critical account of the ideas underpinning educational leadership, and engages with those ideas by examining the origins, development and use of conceptual frameworks and models of best practice.

In this accessible book, Barry Hallen discusses the major ideas, figures, and schools of thought in African philosophy. While drawing out critical issues in the formation of African philosophy, Hallen focuses on the recent scholarship, current issues, and relevant debates that have made African philosophy an important key to understanding the rich and complex cultural heritage of Africa. Hallen builds upon Africa's connections with Western philosophical traditions and explores African contributions to cultural universalism, cultural relativism, phenomenology, hermeneutics, and Marxism. (...) Hallen also examines African challenges to Western conceptions of philosophy by taking on questions such as whether philosophy can exist in cultures that are significantly based in oral traditions and what may or may not constitute philosophical texts. Among the figures whose work is discussed are Ptah-hotep, Zar'a Ya'aqob, Anton Wilhelm Amo, Paulin Hountondji, V. Y. Mudimbe, Oyeronke Oyewumi, Kwame Anthony Appiah, and Kwasi Wiredu. This clearly written, highly readable, and concise work will be essential for students and scholars of African philosophy as well as readers with a wide range of interests in African studies. (shrink)

This essay, which won the Prince Consort Prize for 1950, treats of the revolutionary change in historical writing that followed the entry into England, early in the nineteenth century, of the ideas of Vico and of the German historical school. Chiefly through Coleridge's influence, eighteenth-century rationalist suppositions gave place in certain men to a fundamentally opposed, 'Romantic' philosophy, and so to a new kind of History. Mr. Forbes is particularly concerned with the part played in this revolution (...) by the liberal Anglicans: Thomas Arnold, Headmaster of Rugby and Regius Professsor of Modern History at Oxford; Richard Whitely, Professor of Political Economy at Oxford and Archbishop of Dublin; Julius Charles Hare, disciple of Coleridge and translator (with Thirlwall) of Niebuhr's History of Rome; Connop Thirlwall, Bishop of St David's and author of the History of Greece; Henry Hart Milman, Professor of Poetry and Oxford and Dean of St Paul's; Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, pupil and biographer of Thomas Arnold, and Dean of Westminster. They have elsewhere been studied in the compartments of 'classical' and 'ecclesiastical' history. But it is fundamental to their outlook on Church and State that for them no such compartments existed, and their idea of History as a whole has hitherto lacked an English historian. This essay does much more than clarify technical problems in one of the various ideas of History embraced in Professor Toynbee's system. Mr. Forbes addresses his book to all students of nineteenth-century thought. (shrink)