MEETINGS Roman Ingarden in Recollections Edited by Leszek Sosnowski MEETINGS Roman Ingarden in Recollections Andrzej Ingarden Krzysztof Ingarden Jerzy Aleksandrowicz Maria Gołaszewska Andrzej Kowal Józef Lipiec Janina Makota Andrzej Półtawski Ewa Sowa Władysław Stróżewski Beata Szymańska Jan Woleński Krzysztof Zanussi Leopold Zgoda Klaudia Adamowicz Dominika Czakon Karol Kapelko Monika Komaniecka-Łyp Rafał Kur Natalia Anna Michna Patryk Miernik Leszek Sosnowski Jan Turlej Paulina Tendera MEETINGS Roman Ingarden in Recollections edited by Leszek Sosnowski Krakow 2020 © Copyright by individual authors, Krakow 2020 Proofreading Michelle Atallah Maria Macko Cover design Agnieszka Gogola ISBN 978-83-8138-124-6 (print) ISBN 978-83-8138-288-5 (on-line, pdf) The publication is financed by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Poland under the program “DIALOG” in the years 2019-2020 KSIĘGARNIA AKADEMICKA PRESS ul. św. Anny 6, 31-008 Krakow tel./faks: 12 431-27-43, 12 421-13-87 e-mail: akademicka@akademicka.pl https://akademicka.pl/ 11 17 31 63 116 128 138 152 174 Table of contents I . Introduction Introduction Dominika Czakon, Natalia Anna Michna Roman Ingarden – Life and Work from a Subjective Perspective Monika Komaniecka-Łyp Roman W. Ingarden In the Files of the Security Service Leszek Sosnowski Roman Ingarden. Portrait of a Teacher II. Recollections Andrzej Ingarden Recollections of a Grandson Krzysztof Ingarden Recollections of a Grandson Jerzy Aleksandrowicz “…He was the one who was creating opportunities for critical thinking…” Maria Gołaszewska “…With Ingarden one had to be able to sail by themselves…” Andrzej Kowal “…if you do any scientific work, you should do it neatly…” 194 Józef Lipiec “…I don’t understand much of this…” 212 Janina Makota “…studies are not a military drill…” 230 Andrzej Półtawski “…Philosophy cannot be developed through experiments…” 246 Ewa Sowa “…A man and a teacher are ultimately inseparable…” 278 Władysław Stróżewski “…there is some philosophical spark in every person…” 300 Beata Szymańska “…philosophy used to be only for men, as he called it frauenlos…” 320 Jan Woleński “…he considered himself a depositary of the philosophical truth…” 350 Krzysztof Zanussi “…It was me who felt like a monument was passing me by…” 370 Leopold Zgoda “…Ingarden was a master, but Dąmbska was the one who brought us up…” III. Roman Ingarden’s Students 388 Students of Prof. Roman Ingarden MA classes in 1946-50 389 The students of Prof. Roman Ingarden in 1957-63 393 Photographs 419 Index Introduction Leszek Sosnowski L. Sosnowski at the exhibition on the 30th anniversary of death of R. Ingarden – Institute of Philosophy of the Jagiellonian University Introduction Leszek Sosnowski Introduction1 Phenomenology is not a current trend in philosophy, nor is it a fashionable trend in philosophical culture. This is probably one of the reasons why research of the academic achievements of Roman Ingarden has weakened and slowed down in recent years. To some extent this is the law of history, but it is surely also, in some way, the issue of Ingarden’s very thought, the understanding of which requires effort and commitment. In times of rapid and easy intellectual consumption, part of the philosophy adapts to the new requirements, offering recipients in­creasingly numerous new intellectual ‘-isms’. The structurally and systematically ordered philosophy of Ingarden requires intellectual effort, offering a reliable philosophical thought in return. In its exploration, it can be considered both an advantage and a disadvantage; a fault, because Ingarden – on the one hand – creatively developed the fundamental problems of the main philosophical fields, using his very individual and phenomenological style of investigation. More than one reader will recognize this style of philosophical argument as an additional difficulty in comprehending and assimilating Ingarden’s views. The style is clear and consistent, but – due to the descriptive and “visualizing type of phenom­enological reflection” – it is detailed, not to say meticulous, and “meander”2. 1 Publication financed as part of the “DIALOG” program of the Minister of Science and Higher Education implemented in 2019-2020. 2 Słownik pojęć filozoficznych Romana Ingardena, eds. Andrzej J. Nowak, and Leszek Sosnowski (Krakow: Universitas, 2001), V. The first two paragraphs of the introduc­ tion refer to the Słownik. Leszek Sosnowski On the other hand, it is an advantage because – as Ingarden emphasized – his system has the nature of an organic whole. In this kind of a whole, the considered problems and threads are closely intertwined, one resulting from another. Among them, one is the supreme, principal and leading in such a system. In Ingarden’s case, it is about the motive of the controversy over the existence of the world, which is the core of the Polish philosopher’s system, giving it exceptional consis­tency and uniformity. Ingarden was aware of this and expected readers to treat his thought as a whole, and thus study it holistically. Requirements formulated in this way did not make it easier to absorb the philosopher’s thought, more so obscuring its understanding. This is certainly one of the reasons for the current state of the rate of familiarity with this thought, its current abandonment or sidetracking in favor of other theories in modern philosophical research. To the current ‘breakthrough’ the Controversy over the Existence of the World, with its in-depth analysis and multilevel divisions, is quite a challenge for the mind of a modern student and researcher. This publication is not yet another presentation of Ingarden’s system; nor is it an analytical penetration into the detailed problems of that system. The philosopher is depicted here through the recollections of his students who par­ticipated in his academic activities in the years 1957-1963. This is his second return to didactics in the post-war period, separated by a forced leave and a ban on teaching; the first period being the years 1945-1950. The introduction is not, however, the place to discuss the image of Ingarden emerging from the minds of his students. The reader can find this in further parts of the book including the memories of particular individuals. It is worth to noting, however, that the details of this image are carried by Ingarden’s students both in their minds and in their hearts. The period of their studies was an important, intellectu­ally and emotionally formative time. It is difficult to distinguish between these spheres of personality subjected to the influence of the great teacher and the academic that Ingarden was. While expressing deep gratitude to everyone for contributing to the creation of this mosaic image of the philosopher, one cannot overlook Ingarden’s close relatives. It is about the opening of the second part of the book – Ingarden’s grandchild’s memories: Andrzej and Krzysztof Ingarden. The reader will find their personal recollections from unknown family events, about his wife and Introduction sons. The other reminiscences are coming from Ingarden’s direct students. It is important to notice that pupils included here, are the second generation of aca­demics whose intellectual achievements entered the Polish philosophical culture for good. Not all of them lived to see this publication. Jerzy Aleksandrowicz, Maria Gołaszewska, Andrzej Kowal, Janina Makota and Adam Węgrzecki have passed away. They knew, however, that their memories will be the initiating and important element of the celebration of the 50th anniversary of Ingarden’s death in 2020. This half-century includes the earlier anniversaries of births and deaths, marked by occasional conferences and book publications. Perhaps the time has come to approach Ingarden in a different way, not through the many complex elements of his system, but through the features of his intellectual and emotional image that emerges from the memories of those around him. Maybe by reviving the very figure of this eminent Polish humanist, his philosophy will also once again come to life. The book consists of two distinct parts. The first is introducing chapters, ranged according to an age and the level of saturation with Ingarden’s ideology. The first chapter in this section – authored by Dominika Czakon and Natalia Anna Michna – is a more personal reflection on Ingarden from the point of view of the young­est generation of philosophers3. Next, an article by Monika Komaniecka-Łyp presents the history of Ingarden when he was under surveillance by the Security Service of the Polish People’s Republic, resulting from the operations aimed against the academic community of the Jagiellonian University. The last text in this section – authored by the undersigned – is of a biographical nature, where Ingarden is presented as a secondary school teacher and academic mentor. The second part of the book is a unique collection of memories of Ingarden’s two grandchildren, students, friends and associates. The work provides the reader with a large collection of photos presenting the authors of the recollections at the time of their university studies. One can also 3 I would like to thank Dr. Dominika Czakon and Dr. Natalia Anna Michna for their contribution and extensive work on the final version of the book. Leszek Sosnowski find pictures of personal memorabilia, such as student records from exams in important subjects. In the vast majority of cases, Ingarden is the main character behind both photos and scans of individual pages from the record books. At the end of the book the reader will find a list of students from particular years of the last period of his work. A publication of this nature cannot fail to include such an important element as acknowledgments. Many people took part in its creation. One of them is Janina Szarek, for several decades the head of the Library of the Institute of Philosophy, a person with a wonderful heart and equally great memory and knowledge, also with regards to the 1950s. Ingarden returned to his didactic work in 1957, after the restoration of philosophy at the Jagiellonian University and commissioned – as the head of the Chair of Philosophy – the creation of a new library, which was devised by merging several book collections. Ms. Szarek’s reliable memory suggests that these were collections of the former Philosophical Seminary, which included collections from the Chair of Logic until the year 1957. This Chair took over a collection of philosophical books after the shutdown of philosophy at the Jagiellonian University. The new library also included archives from the Konwersatorium Naukoznawcze [the Circle of the Science of Science], the Stu­dents’ Philosophical Circle of the Jagiellonian University and the Chair of the Foundations of Marxism-Leninism. The library, which has been run by Ms. Szarek since its creation, was located on the ground floor of a building at Manifestu Lipcowego St. 13 (now Józef Piłsudski St.). It has been used to its full extent by employees and students of philosophy, while students of other majors could benefit from the extensive col­lection in the reading room. As she recalls, after checking all the listed collections and excluding the unnecessary duplicates and works unrelated to philosophy, the remaining books were entered into the joint inventory. Ms. Szarek strongly emphasizes that the academics employed at the time were also involved in the aforementioned operations. Regardless of the above-mentioned thanks, the ones deserving words of grati­tude the most are all those who have devoted their time to conduct the interviews contained in the present work, and whose names can be found on the pre-title page. These are doctors and doctoral students of the Institute of Philosophy of the Jagiellonian University, who constitute the next generation of the young­ Introduction est Polish intellectuals. One can hope that the meetings they took part in, their participation in the emotions expressed in the recollections and the ingrained picture of Ingarden will influence their attitudes and commitment to their own explorations and research. This would be the best way to uphold the intellectual heritage of the great predecessor at the center of the foregoing chapters, as well as serve as a well-deserved tribute to him. Dominika Czakon • Natalia Anna Michna Roman Ingarden – Life and Work from a Subjective Perspective Roman Ingarden – Life and Work from a Subjective Perspective Dominika Czakon1 Natalia Anna Michna2 Roman Ingarden – Life and Work from a Subjective Perspective In the era of the crisis of traditional ideals of the humanist academic and the institution of the Master-Teacher, young researchers are faced with the problem of finding the right direction in the modern world of science and academia. This crisis is also accompanied by the loss of the multiplicity and diversity of theories, trends and issues that can be dealt with and developed. As a result, young people are forced to venture on solitary searches while struggling to meet institutional requirements and being pushed into narrowly specialized subfields. As young researchers just setting first steps on our academic paths, we too are facing these challenges. After seeking inspiration from various philosophizing traditions, among various thinkers and philosophical schools of thought, we have set to start cooperation with Professor Leszek Sosnowski, who for many 1Dr. Dominika Czakon is an assistant professor in the Faculty of Philosophy at the Jagiellonian University in Krakow. She is a co-creator of The Roman Ingarden Digital Archive. 2Dr. Natalia Anna Michna is an assistant professor in the Faculty of Philosophy at the Jagiellonian University in Krakow. She is a co-creator of The Roman Ingarden Digital Archive. years has been dealing with the academic legacy of Roman Witold Ingarden. Together, we have prepared an academic project involving broadly understood research, digitalization and translation (into English) of the previously un­published correspondence and academic works of the Polish philosopher. This project, however, quickly turned out to be more than just another research task. A two-year study of Ingarden’s achievements has taught us a lot and aroused our enthusiasm for individual academic work. The intense intermediate contact with an authority of as immense a stature as Ingarden had, could not have left our attitudes, ambitions and even our personalities unchanged. We have found that in the age of the universal crisis of humanistic and moral values, finding a model worth following and making an attempt to follow in those footsteps is still important. We are aware that such declarations may sound high-spirited and naive today, but in this short text we can hopefully show that they are by no means unfounded. In their recollections, Ingarden’s students present him to the contemporary reader as an outstanding Teacher from the Past. We, in our humble contribution, want to show that Ingarden also deserves to be called the Teacher of the Future, a figure that constantly inspires and is a signpost for future generations of (not just Polish) academics. Born in the late 19th century, he grew up in the early 20th century, and his entire adult life developed in the turbulent pre-war times, World War I, the in­terwar period, World War II and in the difficult years of communism in Poland. He belonged to a generation educated according to traditional European models, and, at the same time – despite obvious difficulties – he shaped his adult academic career in the spirit of modernity, maintaining numerous international contacts, traveling, keeping up to date with current philosophical trends and academic literature. Ingarden graduated from the Jan Kanty Public Elementary School in Krakow, Francis Joseph Secondary School in Lviv and the violin class at the Conservatory of the Polish Music Society in Lviv. In 1910, at the age of 17, he traveled to Europe with his father, visiting, among others: Budapest, Vienna, Ebensee, Salzburg, Munich, Neuheim, Nuremberg, Frankfurt am Main, Dresden. Then, in 1911, he began studying at the University of Lviv, where his teachers were such prominent figures as: Kazimierz Twardowski, Mścisław Wartenberg and Jan Łukasiewicz. Roman Ingarden – Life and Work from a Subjective Perspective After a year in Lviv, he moved to the Georg-August University in Göttingen, where he studied under other prominent scholars, such as: Edmund Husserl, Georg E. Müller, and Adolf Reinach until the outbreak of the Great War in 1914. In 1918 he defended his doctoral dissertation, written under Husserl, at the Albert Ludwig University in Freiburg, where he and his supervisor had stayed (with breaks) since 1916. The time of his studies, spent in the best Euro­pean universities, among international students and lecturers, meant obtaining a classical, comprehensive education at the highest level, gaining a cosmopolitan outlook, and assimilating traditional humanistic values. This extremely intense time, abundant in scientific experience came to an end with his return to Poland, when Ingarden started a family and took up the job of a teacher in junior high schools, among others in Warsaw and Toruń. He returned to the university permanently only after the Second World War, initially as a foreign professor, and then as a contract professor at the Jagiellonian University in Krakow. However, before this was the case, he continued his academic activity with great persistence and commitment, combining it with the necessary, often te­dious and uncertain gainful employment (as a junior high school teacher, pri­vate teacher or private associate professor). In 1925, the Ministry of Religious Denominations and Public Education approved Ingarden’s habilitation based on a dissertation written under the supervision of Twardowski O pytaniach esencjalnych [On Essential Questions]; until 1930 he worked on the book Das Literarische Kunstwerk; until 1945 he worked on Controversy over the Existence of the World (written simultaneously in two languages: Polish and German). The years from 1945 until Ingarden’s death (excluding the period of his forced leave at the University and break in conducting classes from 1951 to 1956) was a time of intense focus on his academic work, which combined further independent research activity, cooperation with other researchers, as well as didactic activ­ity. In their recollections, Ingarden’s students stress that in this period of over 20 years, Ingarden’s presence in Polish post-war reality gave birth to a center of free philosophical thought based on traditional, humanistic and cosmopolitan ideals, nurtured persistently despite the prevailing communist hopelessness. Ingarden’s extensive epistolary legacy is a rich, and so far only fragmentarily known, source of knowledge about the philosopher’s academic work and private life. Both these domains deserve equal attention and interest. There is no doubt about the importance and value of Ingarden’s professional success for the world of academia, whereas becoming acquainted with his letters has allowed us to recognize that his work was also inspired by various events in his private life. Indeed, it was the steadfast attitude, the effort put in to manage the duties of everyday life, often despite many adversities and during difficult post-war times, that paved the way to scientific achievements now discussed all over the world. Let us first take a look at Ingarden’s academic attitude and activities. Renaissance humanist and contemporary academic Ingarden’s correspondence is a unique research material, the study of which has enabled us to get to know the philosopher from a completely new perspective. For we all know Ingarden from his scientific works crucial to twentieth-century philosophy. Meanwhile, the letters he exchanged throughout his life with Polish and foreign researchers paint a surprising and highly fascinating picture of a man of great class, steadfast spirit and witty intellect. Thus, Ingarden’s character grows less abstract and more specific and multidimensional. And, in our opinion, in terms of character he is also a role model worth following by modern academics. Throughout his life Ingarden has been active in many fields of academic activity: he worked in secondary schools and universities, private tutoring, was a speaker at numerous conferences and congresses, where he presented papers in German, French and English, was an active member of many Polish and foreign scientific societies, he was also often involved in editorial work. As a secondary school teacher, he was extremely committed to the subject matter and took efforts to meticulously prepare for every lesson. In addition, the private fate of his students was also important to him. In the letters he often showed concern for the well-being of young people whom he met every day at school. The students interviewed in this book remember him the same way. The letters contain frequent mentions about diploma theses written by young philosophy students, their examinations and the reviews of their works by experienced researchers. All such remarks are delivered in a demanding but fair tone of a teacher who had always been able to appreciate the students’ efforts and take their future fate and career into account. Therefore, we have no doubts, and Roman Ingarden – Life and Work from a Subjective Perspective the memories contained in this publication also confirm the fact that Ingarden was a great educator. At the same time he conducted his own research, which he developed in constant contact and through polemics with other researchers. At this point, it is worth noting that Ingarden’s collection of several thousand letters was written, to a large extent, to recipients from abroad, including the most prominent representatives of his contemporary world of science and art. This fact deserves special attention due to the political situation of Poland of that time. The communist system was far from conducive to the free exchange of ideas, and yet Ingarden managed to stay in constant and creative contact with the international academic community for years, through active participation in foreign conferences, congresses and lectures, publishing abroad, entering into academic polemics with foreign researchers, and obtaining opinions and aca­demic reviews from them, keeping up to date with the latest publications and subscribing to important periodicals. Such an attitude is an undeniable testi­mony to Ingarden’s broad and modern horizons, constantly developed by him despite the closed state borders. The contents of Ingarden’s archival materials also confirm that most of the translations of his works were created by him, with only few corrections that may have been added upon a request for review by his colleagues or acquaintances. Ingarden also used his innate abilities and acquired language skills to co-cre­ate the Library of Classics of Philosophy (LCP), a publication series created in 1952 under the auspices of the PWN [Polish Scientific Publishers]. The translation and editorial work of considerable importance for the development of philosophy in Poland, spanning over a multitude of years, involved the most eminent representatives of national humanities, such as: Tadeusz Kotarbiński (President of the LCP), Władysław Tatarkiewicz, Kazimierz Ajdukiewicz, Izydora Dąmbska, Daniela Gromska, Henryk Elzenberg, Stanisław Ossowski, or Tade­usz Kroński. A large part of Ingarden’s correspondence refers to matters related to LCP’s activities; Ingarden shows a lot of concern for the subject matter and translation issues and devoted attention to linguistic nuances. Ingarden also took on the responsibility of selecting translators for particular works and prepared reviews for the finished translations. Such a broad scope of duties once again proves the extensive competences of this philosopher, including his organizational skills, manifested in the effective coordination of the multi-range work. Another institution of no less importance for Polish science and culture was (and still remains) the Polish Philosophical Society. Ingarden was deeply involved in this organization’s activity almost from the very beginning, which is also reflected in his epistolary legacy. After the Second World War, Ingarden actively participated in the reorganization of the Society, and then for many years he worked for its development, efficient functioning and popularization, and thus in a broader perspective, for the enrichment and dissemination of phi­losophy in Poland. He was a regular and active participant in the organization’s meetings, primarily in Krakow, but also in other Polish cities. He appeared both as a frequent speaker, presenting speeches about his current research, as well as an involved, attentive and critical commentator. The archival materials left by Ingarden include protocols of PPS meetings which document them in detail. In the philosopher’s commitment to the Society’s activity, we see a modern awareness of the value of creating and maintaining specialized research teams and the creative intellectual potential of working in a group. Today, in the era of grants and international projects, the attitude presented by Ingarden is exemplary, valuable, and seems increasingly necessary. Ingarden’s name is also associated with some of the most important Polish philosophical journals published in the country before and after the Second World War. We mean, above all, Studia Philosophica. Commentarii Societatis Philosophicae Polonorum, Ruch Filozoficzny [Philosophical Movement] and Kwar­talnik Filozoficzny [Philosophical Quarterly]. Studia Philosophica is the first national philosophical magazine published in foreign languages to disseminate Polish philosophical thought abroad. It was founded on the initiative of Kazi­mierz Twardowski, and the first issue edited by Twardowski, Ajdukiewicz and Ingarden was published in Lviv in 1935. Before the war, another issue of Studia was published in 1937 under the same editorial team3. The post-war fate of the journal is documented extensively in Ingarden’s correspondence, including 3 Both pre-war issues of the magazine have been digitized and are available on the website of the Silesian Digital Library at: “Studia Philosophica. Commentarii Societatis Philosophicae Polonorum,” Śląska Biblioteka Cyfrowa, accessed January 4, 2019, https://www.sbc.org.pl/dlibra/publication/23053?language=pl#structure. Roman Ingarden – Life and Work from a Subjective Perspective the efforts he made to ensure its functioning and development4. Unfortunately, in 1951, the communist authorities finally blocked the operation of the period­ ical. The history of the second of the aforementioned journals, the Philosophical Movement, dates back to pre-war times. The first volume of this periodical, edited by Twardowski, came out in Lviv on January 15, 1911. In the pre-war period, the magazine was published with varying frequency and under various edito­ rial offices. During World War II the publishing of Movement was suspended. It resumed its activity for a short period of time in 1948 in Toruń as a publica­ tion of the Polish Philosophical Society, with Tadeusz Czeżowski as its editor5. The genuine activity of the magazine after the war only resumed in 1958. At that time, Movement had its field representatives, including Ingarden in Kra­ kow. The cooperation of Ingarden with Czeżowski and the Philosophical Move­ ment is also reflected in many letters exchanged by the two researchers. As for Philosophical Quarterly, Ingarden was mainly associated with it as one of its published authors. The journal published by the Polish Academy of Learn­ ing in Krakow operated in the years 1922-1950, until it was shut down by the communist authorities of the Polish People’s Republic. The activity of the Quarterly only resumed in 1992, when an outstanding student of Ingarden and Izydora Dąmbska, Władysław Stróżewski6 became its editor-in-chief. Ingarden’s editorial commitment, cooperation and presence on the pages of the most im­ portant Polish philosophical journals leave no doubt that he was aware of the importance of popularizing and disseminating the intellectual achievements of the academic community both in the country and abroad. We believe that this 4 Radosław Kuliniak et al., comp., Korespondencja Romana Witolda Ingardena. Z dziejów “Studia Philosophica. Commentarii Societatis Philosophicae Polonorum” (Kęty: Wydaw­ nictwo Marek Derewiecki, 2018). 5 For more on the history of Philosophical Movement see: “Początki i stuletnia obecność Ruchu Filozoficznego w polskiej filozofii. Analiza formalno-organizacyjna i meryto­ ryczna,” Ruch Filozoficzny – UMK, accessed January 4, 2019, http://www.rf.umk.pl/historia-ruchu-filozoficznego/. 6 For more on the activity of Philosophical Quarterly see: “Kwartalnik Filozoficzny,” Polska Akademia Umiejętności, accessed January 4, 2019, http://pau.krakow.pl/index.php/pl/wydawnictwo/strony-czasopism/kwartalnik-filozoficzny. was also accompanied by the belief in the value of Polish philosophical thought of that time and the high competences of Polish researchers, which were also appreciated on the international level. Considering the broad range of Ingarden’s academic and para-academic activ­ities described above, we can state without hesitation that he was one of the main organizers of the philosophical academic life in post-war Poland. This domain was then co-created by such eminent scholars as: Tatarkiewicz, Władysław Witwicki, Tadeusz Kotarbiński, Czeżowski, and Ajdukiewicz, with whom Ingarden was in constant, often very close contact, and even personal and friendly contact for many years. The letters they exchanged are a testimony to the creation of networks of the free exchange of ideas, mutual cooperation and help, and often support in the face of difficult life choices in what was – which we want to reiterate – difficult and unfavorable times. Ingarden’s scientific horizons, however, were not limited to philosophy, but were interdisciplinary, as evidenced by the extensive collection of correspondence with representatives of other scientific disciplines. The recip­ients of Ingarden’s letters include prominent personalities of various branches of Polish humanities, such as: Stefan Szuman, Witold Lutosławski, Stanisław Ignacy Witkiewicz, Zofia Lissa, Jan Parandowski, Jarosław Iwaszkiewicz, Kazimierz Irzy­kowski, Henryk Skolimowski, Juliusz Kleiner and Kazimierz Wyka. Ingarden’s academic contacts were not limited to the Polish academic com­munity, but were of an international nature. The philosopher maintained con­stant and deep relations with researchers from all over the world, which is currently an important element of building and developing a position and a career in the academic domain. Here we can mention such names as: Edmund Husserl, Hans-Georg Gadamer, George Edward Moore, Helmuth Plessner, Jan Patočka, Hermann van Breda, Edith Stein, Hedwig Conrad-Martius, Guido Calogero, Hans Cornelius, Alexandre Koyré, Ludwig Landgrebe, Oscar Becker, Felix Kaufmann, Gerda Walther. Ingarden privately: artist, traveler and friend Ingarden’s attitude to his personal life, his private side, observed primarily by family and friends is what we found to be equally as inspirational as his profes­ Roman Ingarden – Life and Work from a Subjective Perspective sional persona, though it might not have yet been discovered and appreciated by the general public. The private notes and letters of the philosopher as well as the rich photographic material made available to us were an invaluable source of knowledge on the subject. What emerges from them is an image of Ingarden as a man with numerous non-scientific passions, a caring friend, passionate about travel and nature. Furthermore, these materials show that Ingarden was an extremely righteous, just, persistent and demanding man, who was at the same time full of empathy, heart and trust in people. Ingarden’s passion for photography and his artistic flair are at the forefront of the picture. This area of Ingarden’s activity has been subject to thorough research and analysis for a few years now. Intensive studies are being carried out and numerous initiatives regarding Ingarden as an artist-photographer are currently being undertaken at the MOCAK Museum of Contemporary Art in Krakow, under the supervision of director Maria Anna Potocka7. The philosopher left behind several dozen undeveloped photographic films that were created over the years on which he immortalized his everyday life, family and friends, Dżok the dog, foreign trips and numerous trips to the Polish mountains. Although only recently developed, the photographs are not only abundant documentary material, but also interesting artistic attempts8. They include shots of abstract forms, still life, landscapes and interiors. However, our attention was drawn to the photos of the philosopher with his beloved dog Dżok, who – as we know from the recollections included in this volume – was Ingarden’s inseparable companion, a frequent guest at the Institute of Philosophy, and even a “co-interviewer” of 7 More on the events and publications in MOCAK and in “MOCAK Forum”, see: “Wyszukiwarka,” MOCAK, accessed January 7, 2019, https://mocak.pl/search_pages/117938. 8Dr. Maria Anna Potocka held a lecture on Ingarden’s photography entitled Aesthet­ ics, Theory and Praxis during the Roman Ingarden and His Times. An International Phenomenological Conference at the Jagiellonian University between 25 and 27 October 2018. Potocka analized the philospher’s photographs and divided them into categories, subjecting them to her original and critical interpretation. She emphasized that what is of value for Ingarden is the creative act itself, the taking of a photograph, rather than its effect. Hence all the undeveloped films left by him. students during examinations. This incredible bond of a man and an animal can be seen in a number of photographs. Ingarden often took pictures of his family, especially grandchildren, and he was often photographed in their company. Co-workers, who were oftentimes also friends were seemingly also quite spe­cial in Ingarden’s life. The enormous amount of correspondence illustrates long-term, close relationships based on mutual care and help, shown in the difficult times before and after the war. Ingarden often acted as an intermediary on behalf of his friends in professional matters, helping them out with their employment efforts (example of Dąmbska), but also in personal matters, as in the case of the purchase of medicines for the mother of one of his co-workers (Gierulanka). The letters overflow with sincere empathy and genuine commitment9. The unique evidence of Ingarden’s true, deep and long-term friendship with Husserl is their correspondence maintained over the years and continuing even after Husserl’s death between Ingarden and the family of the German philosopher. Ingarden’s letters with Malvine Husserl, the wife of the phenomenologist, maintain a warm tone of mutual sympathy and respect. Even in the recollections of his students, Ingarden appears as a man with a sense of humor, one uncommonly hospitable, with his home always open to everyone. When writing about Ingarden’s correspondence and friendships, it is worth noting that keeping up with it had to be an important element of the philos­opher’s everyday life. Letters were written almost every day, and Ingarden was a very careful and meticulous correspondent who never neglected any of his recipients and wrote to them regularly and comprehensively. He never neglected the letters even when traveling around the world and Poland. Travelling was an essential part of his professional and private life. He managed to do that despite the obvious political obstacles, which exemplifies the philosopher’s stern determination and persistence. From his correspondence and recollections of those around him, we have learned that he remained in touch with his relatives and friends during a number of foreign trips related to lectures, speeches and conferences in: the United States, Norway, Germany, 9 More on Ingarden’s correspondence with Polish researchers, see: Dominika Czakon, Natalia Anna Michna, Leszek Sosnowski, “Polskie badaczki w korespondencji Romana Ingardena,” Kwartalnik Filozoficzny 46, no. 2 (2018): 113-31. Roman Ingarden – Life and Work from a Subjective Perspective France, Italy, Belgium and Greece. His travels in Poland, apart from frequent visits in Warsaw, Poznan, Wroclaw or Lublin for lectures and other academic activities, also included trips to the Polish mountains. He would leave for the mountains whenever he could, whether alone or with his family, mostly to Zakopane and Rabka. Reports from his stays found in the letters show that he valued the opportunity to stay away from the noise of the city and be in close contact with nature. Our experience in working on Ingarden’s correspondence and archival materials allows us to say that we are dealing with an outstanding man. Undoubtedly, the Polish philosopher was a Renaissance humanist with a modern research approach. Ingarden received a sound, classic education, possessed extensive knowledge and an unusually open mind. The last of the aforementioned features deserves partic­ular attention in the context of the times in which he came to live, the long years of political, cultural and spiritual isolation. Ingarden was also relentless when he was convinced of the legitimacy of his position, which can be seen in numerous polemics he entered into in his letters. At the same time, he was always open to a dialogue and valued the opinions of others. He was focused on scientific values and determined to achieve individual and shared academic goals important for the development of humanities not only in Poland, but also worldwide. He was characterized by courage, strength and steadfastness. He was a man of principle, but also a man of great heart. People of his stature prove, through their life and work, that the notion of authority can still have meaning, and set an example for the coming generations of young Polish researchers. Bibliography • Czakon, Dominika, and Natalia Anna Michna, Leszek Sosnowski. “Polskie badaczki w korespondencji Romana Ingardena.” Kwartalnik Filozoficzny 46, no. 2 (2018): 113-31. • Kuliniak, Radosław, and Dorota Leszczyna, Mariusz Pandura, Łukasz Ratajczak, comp. Korespondencja Romana Witolda Ingardena. Z dziejów “Studia Philosophica. Commentarii Societatis Philosophicae Polonorum.” Kęty: Wydawnictwo Marek Derewiecki, 2018. • Polska Akademia Umiejętności. “Kwartalnik Filozoficzny.” Accessed January 4, 2019. http://pau.krakow.pl/index.php/pl/wydawnictwo/strony-czasopism/ kwartalnik-filozoficzny. • Śląska Biblioteka Cyfrowa. “Studia Philosophica. Commentarii Societatis Philosophicae Polonorum.” Accessed January 4, 2019. https://www.sbc.org.pl/dlibra/publication/23053?language=pl#structure. • Święta Teresa Benedykta od Krzyża [St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross] – Edyta Stein. Autoportret z listów. Pt. 3: Listy do Romana Ingardena, edited by Maria Amata Neyer, and Eberhard Avé-Lallemant. Translated by Małgorzata Klentak­Zabłocka, and Andrzej Wajs. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Karmelitów Bosych, 2003. • The Roman Ingarden Digital Archive. Accessed January 7, 2019. https://ingarden.archive. uj.edu.pl/. • Ruch Filozoficzny – UMK. “Początki i stuletnia obecność Ruchu Filozoficznego w polskiej filozofii. Analiza formalno-organizacyjna i merytoryczna.” Accessed January 4, 2019. http://www.rf.umk.pl/historia-ruchu-filozoficznego/. • MOCAK. “Wyszukiwarka.” Accessed January 7, 2019. https://mocak.pl/search_pages/117938. Roman Ingarden – Life and Work from a Subjective Perspective Monika Komaniecka-Łyp Roman W. Ingarden In the Files of the Security Service Roman W. Ingarden In the Files of the Security Service Monika Komaniecka-Łyp1 Roman W. Ingarden In the Files of the Security Service The period after 1945 was very difficult for Polish philosophy. After the Second World War, and the initial enthusiasm associated with the return of professors to higher education institutions and the revival of philosophical trends at universities, comes a period of removing professors from their positions and shutting down departments. At the end of the 1940s, there is an open offen­sive by communists who promote the one and only model allowed to exist in philosophy, namely Marxism. The communists, who came to power in Poland with the support of Stalin and the Red Army in the first stage, sought to solidify their influence in the country and deal with the resistance of their opponents, the independent underground, by means of armed forces. That was the main purpose of the extensive structure of the national security apparatus aimed at that very nation’s citizens2. It was only when the communist author­ities started to feel more confident that they began to work on subordinating academics to their ideology. The first sign of the toughening attitude towards the philosophical community was the shutdown of scientific journals: Prze­gląd Filozoficzny [Philosophical Review] in 1949 and Kwartalnik Filozoficzny [Philosophical Quarterly] in the following year. The changes were sealed at 1 Dr. Monika Komaniecka-Łyp is an employee of the Branch Office of Historical Research of the Institute of National Remembrance in Krakow. 2 Ryszard Terlecki, Miecz i tarcza komunizmu. Historia aparatu bezpieczeństwa w Polsce 1944-1990 (Krakow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 2009). the First Congress of Polish Science, which took place in Warsaw at the turn of June and July 19513. Phenomenologist Professor Roman Witold Ingarden was one of the greatest philosophers in Poland4. In 1945 he came to the Jagiellonian University to become head of the Chair of Philosophy. The foregoing article concerns the subject of surveillance of Professor Roman Ingarden by the security apparatus of the Polish communist state over the period of his work at the Jagiellonian University (1945-1963). Political and social changes in the Polish People’s Republic did not spare the universities. As Marxism became the official ideology, the government started closing philosophical studies. In 1949, the Seminar on the Foundations of Marxism-Leninism was established at the Jagiellonian University. In the 1950s, the Faculty of Humanities of the Jagiellonian University (the former Faculty of Philosophy) was transformed into the Faculty of Philosophy and Social Studies (1951), and then into the Faculty of Philosophy and History, which consisted of the Chair of Foundations of Marxism-Leninism and the Chair of Logic5. 3 Piotr Hübner, Nauka polska po II wojnie światowej idee i instytucje (Warszawa: COM SNP, 1987); idem, Polityka naukowa w Polsce w latach 1944-1953. Geneza systemu, vol. 1-2 (Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1992); Ryszard Jadczak, ed., Polskie Zjazdy Filozoficzne (Toruń: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, 1995); Rafał Stobiecki, “Historia i historycy wobec nowej rzeczywistości. Z dziejów polskiej nauki historycznej w latach 1945-1951,” Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Historica 43 (1991): 163-87. 4 For more on Roman Ingarden see: Maria Gołaszewska, Roman Ingarden. Człowiek i dzieło (Krakow: Uniwersytet Jagielloński, 1993); Zofia Majewska, Książeczka o In­gardenie. Szkic biograficzny (Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skło­dowskiej, 1995); Władysław Stróżewski, “Roman Ingarden,” in Złota księga Wydziału Filozoficznego, eds. Justyna Miklaszewska, and Janusz Mizera (Krakow: Księgarnia Akademicka, 2000), 253-78. 5 Miklaszewska and Mizera, Złota księga, 11; Kazimierz Pasenkiewicz, “Filozofia i logika w Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim w latach 1945-1964,” in Studia z dziejów Wydziału Filozoficzno-Historycznego Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, ed. Sylwiusz Mikucki (Krakow: Uniwersytet Jagielloński, 1967), 40. Roman W. Ingarden In the Files of the Security Service The Thaw caused by changes in politics after Władysław Gomułka came to power in October 1956 also affected the university environment6. Many pro­fessors removed from positions in the Stalinist years returned to universities. It became possible to travel to participate in foreign congresses and conferences, be­cause in most cases there were no longer difficulties in obtaining a passport. At the beginning of November 1956, Professor Henryk Barycz became the dean of the Faculty of Philosophy and History of the Jagiellonian University. The same month the Faculty Council under his leadership made the decisions to reopen philosophical studies starting the 1957/1958 academic year, to shut down Department of the Foundations of Marxism-Leninism and to reactivate the Chairs dissolved in the Stalinist period: of Philosophy under the leadership of Professor Roman Ingarden and of the History of Philosophy7. The liberalization of cultural and scientific life did not last very long, as Gomułka began to withdraw his concessions three years later. Consequently, the government institutions started to look for the enemies of the system and carefully tracking them. One of the major operations carried out by the Security Service at the end of the 1950s and 1960s in the Polish academic centers was aimed at identifying people who contacted or met with Professor Stanisław Kot, an outstanding activist of the Polish People’s Party in exile and a collaborator of Stanisław Mikołajczyk. Stanisław Kot, a historian of culture, professor of the Jagiellonian University, was not only a scholar, but also a politician. His role grew in the 1950s when he became Polish People’s Party Chief Executive Committee’s delegate for Western Europe8. It had already been in the late 1940s that he was first 6 Paweł Machcewicz, Polski rok 1956 (Warszawa: Mówią Wieki, 1993); Rudolf Klimek, ed., Polski Październik 1956 roku na Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim. Materiały sympozjum naukowego zorganizowanego pod patronatem J.M. Rektora Prof. Franciszka Ziejki przez Uniwersytet Jagielloński, Instytut Pamięci Narodowej i Konsulat Generalny Republiki Węgierskiej w dniu 10 listopada 2001 roku w Krakowie (Krakow: Universitas, 2004). 7 Miklaszewska and Mizera, Złota księga, 11. 8 For more on Stanisław Kot see: Julian Dybiec, Stanisław Kot (1885-1975) (Krakow: Księgarnia Akademicka, 2000); Tadeusz Paweł Rutkowski, Stanisław Kot 1885-1975. Biografia polityczna (Warszawa: DiG, 2000); idem, Stanisław Kot 1885-1975. Między nauką a polityką (Warszawa: Muzeum Historii Polskiego Ruchu Ludowego, 2012); investigated by the security apparatus of the Polish People’s Republic, especially the intelligence (Department VII of the Ministry of Public Security of Poland / the Committee of Public Safety, and then Department I of the Ministry of Interior) and the anti-socialist segment (Department V of the Ministry of Public Security, and then Department III of the Committee of Public Safety / Ministry of Inte­rior). In the period of the October Thaw, Professor Kot, who was staying in Paris, renewed his contacts with friends and coworkers in the country, primarily from the academic community, who would possibly be able to travel abroad. Kot was a great authority among scholars, so the communists in Poland were afraid of his impact in the community9. Any contact with him, providing any information about the situation in Poland was considered espionage. According to the research of Tadeusz Paweł Rutkowski, the invigilation was conducted until the beginning of 1964 (Professor Kot’s illness) by the Security Service units from Warsaw, Wroclaw and Krakow, and it concerned a total of about 100 people, mainly scholars.10 In December 1959, Division III of the Security Service of the Voivodeship Headquarters of the Citizens’ Militia in Krakow, on the instructions of the De­partment III of the Ministry of Interior in Warsaw, put together a case regarding a secret investigation of a group codenamed ‘Venice’ involving individuals from the Krakow academic circles of the Jagiellonian University and the Jagiellonian Library: Adam Vetulani, Henryk Barycz, Jan Hulewicz, Ignacy Zarębski, Jerzy Za­they11. In the following years, the number of people who were being investigated Alina Fitowa, ed., Stanisław Kot – uczony i polityk. Pokłosie sesji naukowej (Krakow: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 2001). 9 Tadeusz Paweł Rutkowski, “Kontakty Stanisława Kota z krajem (1947-1963) w dzia­łaniach operacyjnych UB/SB PRL,” in Nie ma wolności bez pamięci. Księga jubile­uszowa dedykowana Profesorowi Ryszardowi Terleckiemu, eds. Włodzimierz Bernacki et al. (Krakow: WAM, 2009), 273-91; idem, “Stanisław Kot i Polskie Stronnictwo Ludowe na emigracji oczami tajnych współpracowników Służby Bezpieczeństwa PRL,” in Chłopskie partie polityczne z Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej na emigracji 1945-1989, ed. Arkadiusz Indraszczyk (Warszawa: Muzeum Historii Polskiego Ruchu Ludowego, 2009), 189-209. 10 Rutkowski, “Kontakty Stanisława Kota z krajem”, 274-5. 11 Archive of the Institute of National Remembrance [hereinafter referred to as AINR Roman W. Ingarden In the Files of the Security Service increased and record and observation case files were set up on them. Then they were invigilated as group cases of operational surveillance under the code names: ‘Senate’ and ‘Lake’. In December 1963, the investigative case under the code name ‘Venice’ was turned into a case of operational surveillance under the same code name and ‘Senate’ and ‘Lake’ were integrated into it. The following persons were put under investigation as part of the ‘Senate’ operational surveillance case: Wiktor Jakubowski, Stanisław Pigoń, Karol Estreicher, Ludwik Ehrlich, Wacław Kubacki, Wanda Wnorowska, Roman Ingarden and Henryk Wereszycki. The ‘Lake’ case included investigations into: Józef Japa, Zbigniew Skąpski, Emilian Ostachowski, Feliks Młynarski, Jan Wiktor, Jadwiga Zakrzewska12. One of the persons under surveillance by the Krakow security apparatus in the ‘Senate’ case was Roman Ingarden. He belonged to the generation starting their academic careers shortly after World War I, moreover he came from Lviv, so for the Security Service he was an individual who was, at the very least, suspect. Born on February 5, 1893 in Krakow, he graduated from a secondary school in Lviv, then studied philosophy in Göttingen, which he later continued in Vienna and Freiburg in Breisgau. Following the conclusion of World War I he worked as a teacher in secondary schools in Lublin, Warsaw, Toruń and Lviv – where he taught at the Karol Szajnocha 2nd State Middle School until 193313. After his habilitation obtained in 1924 at the Faculty of Philosophy of the Jan Kazimierz University in Lviv, he worked there as an assistant professor. In 1933 he was appointed a university professor and until 1939 he headed the Chair Kr], Ref. No. AINR Kr 010/10151, f. 4, “File on Henryk Barycz, Analysis of cases of persons in contact with activists of Polish People’s Party in exile, Krakow, June 9, 1960,” 82-94. For the bio of the professors see: Jerzy Stelmach and Wacław Uruszczak, eds., Złota księga Wydziału Prawa i Administracji (Krakow: Wydawnictwo Uniwersy­tetu Jagiellońskiego, 2000); Julian Dybiec, ed., Złota księga Wydziału Historycznego (Krakow: Księgarnia Akademicka, 2000). 12 AINR Kr 010/9812, f. 1-4, “The operational surveillance case code-named ‘Sen­ate’”; Ryszard Terlecki, Profesorowie UJ w aktach UB i SB (Krakow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 2002), 121-35. 13 Jagiellonian University Archive [hereinafter referred to as JUA], Ref. No. S III 246, “File on Roman Ingarden, Curriculum vitae, Krakow, May 14, 1948,” N. pag.; ibid., “Personal Survey, Krakow, June 14, 1950,” N. pag. of Philosophy at the Jan Kazimierz University14. During the Soviet occupation he lectured on the theory of literature and the history of German literature at the Chair of German Studies of the Ivan Franko National University in Lviv (the former Jan Kazimierz University). After the Germans entered Lviv, he taught mathematics at the State Technical Vocational School and engaged in secret teaching, conducting classes at the Faculty of Humanities of the Jan Kazimierz University. In June 1944, he moved to Pieskowa Skała near Krakow15. In February 1945 Ingarden began lecturing in philosophy at the Jagiellonian University as a ‘foreign professor’ at the invitation of the dean of the Faculty of Humanities Professor Zawirski. During that time, he lived at Biskupia St. in Krakow. In June 1946, as he received a nomination to professor from President Bolesław Bierut16, he took over the leadership of the 2nd Philosophical Seminary at the Faculty of Humanities of the Jagiellonian University – as an equivalent of a Chair. During his heading period he traveled to foreign congresses (Rome in November of 1946, Brussels and Paris in 1947, Amsterdam in 1947 and 1948)17. The situation changed in the late 1940s. The communist ideology assumed that within social sciences philosophy and sociology would be replaced by dialectical and historical materialism. In the new political reality, there was no place for other philo­sophical trends, especially for the idealism of the Lvov-Warsaw School18. The pro­gram of philosophical studies at the Jagiellonian University was updated – the study 14 Roman Stanisław Ingarden, Roman Witold Ingarden. Życie filozofa w okresie toruń­skim (1921-1926) (Toruń: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, 2000); Majewska, Książeczka, 13-54. 15 Majewska, Książeczka, 57, 62. 16 JUA, “File on Roman Ingarden, Curriculum vitae, Krakow, May 14, 1948,” N. pag.; ibid., “A copy of the letter from Minister Czesław Wycech to Professor Roman Ingar­den, Warsaw, July 17, 1946,” N. pag.; Roman Ingarden, “Sprawozdanie z działalności w Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim i wspomnienia z tego czasu”, comp. Jerzy Perzanowski, Kwartalnik Filozoficzny 27, no. 2 (1999): 220-1. 17 JUA, “[Opinion on Prof. Romans Ingarden developed by the dean of the Faculty of Philosophy and History Prof. Henryk Barycz], Krakow, October 4, 1957,” N. pag. 18 Ryszard Jadczak, “Z dziejów spotkania szkoły lwowsko-warszawskiej z marksizmem,” Edukacja Filozoficzna 11 (1991): 99-114. Roman W. Ingarden In the Files of the Security Service program in the 1950/1951 academic year did not include philosophy, instead it contained dialectical materialism, logic and the history of philosophy. In November 1950 Professor Roman Ingarden received a paid leave, and the Philosophical Seminary was dissolved. A year later his paid leave was extended for scientific purposes and he was deprived of the license to teach19. During this difficult period, Ingarden became involved in the activities of the Polish Aca­demy of Learning. In 1945 he was appointed a correspondent member of the Faculty of History and Philosophy of the Polish Academy of Learning; in June 1949 he became an active member. From the end of November 1951, he was the head of the Editorial Department of the Library of Classics of Philosophy at the PWN [Polish Scientific Publishers] in Warsaw20. Deprived of the oppor­tunities to lecture Professor Ingarden organized seminars that took place in his apartment at Biskupia St., as well as in the apartments of his students, including Maria Gołaszewska’s at Kazimierza Wielkiego St. 58 21. There are not many documents in the files of the security apparatus concern­ing Professor Ingarden in the Stalinist period, it is possible they were destroyed. In the years 1947-1953, the surveillance of higher education institutions and professorial staff was brought under the authority of Section 6 of Division V of the Voivodeship Office of Public Security in Krakow, and then Section 5 of the Division V of the aforementioned (March 1953 – April 1955). In December 1954, a reorganization occurred in the security organs, prompted by the escape of Lt. Col. Józef Światło and a program broadcast by Radio Free Europe, wherein he revealed the secret aspects of functioning of the Security Service. In Krakow the changes came several months later – in April 1955, the Voivodeship Office for Public Security Affairs was established. The surveillance of scientific and cultural institutions was in the jurisdiction of Section 6 of Division III of the Voivodeship Office for Public Security Affairs22. 19 Majewska, Książeczka, 71. 20 JUA, “Letter from the rector of the Jagiellonian University to Prof. Roman Ingarden, Krakow, December 5, 1951”; Terlecki, Profesorowie UJ, 124. 21 Krystyna Wilkoszewska, Maria Gołaszewska. 50 lat w Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim (Krakow: Uniwersytet Jagielloński, 1996), 7-8. 22 More on of the Voivodeship Office of Public Security / the Voivodeship Office for In July 1948, the Voivodeship Office of Public Security in Krakow received a tele phonogram from Department VII of the Ministry of Public Security, which called for an investigation of Professor Roman Ingarden. In his reply, Maj. Józef Światło, the deputy head of the Voivodeship Office of Public Security in Krakow, in addition to the standard data on the place of birth and residence, wrote: “At present, as a philosopher, he represents a hostile attitude towards Marxism”23. In one of the documents of the Office of Security from the same period one can also read: “Professor Roman Ingarden, a philosopher of the metaphysical direction, has an unfavorable opinion of the present reality”24. In June 1950, a report was made by a personal informant referred to as “P”, containing in­formation that the names of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Vladimir Lenin do not appear in the two volumes of Ingarden’s Controversy over the Existence of the World concerning ontology. The same report also contains a note: “Ingarden is a definite enemy of Marxism. The matter of his suspension was put before Minister Skrzeszewski a long time ago, however no action has been taken by him to this day”25. Public Security Affairs in Krakow see: Wojciech Frazik, “Struktura organizacyjna Urzędu Bezpieczeństwa w województwie krakowskim w latach 1945-1956 w świetle aktów normatywnych,” in Strażnicy sowieckiego imperium. Urząd Bezpieczeństwa i Służba Bezpieczeństwa w Małopolsce 1945-1990, eds. Filip Musiał, and Michał Wen-klar (Krakow: Dante, 2009), 9-63; idem et al., Ludzie bezpieki województwa krakow­skiego. Obsada stanowisk kierowniczych Urzędu Bezpieczeństwa i Służby Bezpieczeństwa w województwie krakowskim w latach 1945-1990. Informator personalny (2nd edition, revised and supplemented, Krakow: IPN.KŚZpNP, 2009). 23 AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 2, File on Roman Ingarden [hereinafter referred to as AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 2], “[Telephonogram] from Department VII of the Ministry of Public Security [to] Voivodeship Office of Public Security [in Krakow], [Warsaw], July 15, 1948,” 16; ibid., f. 2, “Letter from the deputy head of the Voivodeship Office of Public Security in Krakow to Department VII of the Ministry of Public Security Department in Warsaw, August 4, 1948,” 15. 24 Ibid., f. 2, “[Memo],” 7. 25 Ibid., f. 2, “Official report, source ‘P’, received by: Brandstätter, Krakow, June 22, 1950,” 13. The one referred to here is the Minister of Education in the years 1944-1945 and 1947-1950 Stanisław Skrzeszewski. Roman W. Ingarden In the Files of the Security Service In June 1953, Cpt. Zygmunt Gliński, the head of Department XI (responsible for the fight against the Catholic Church) informed the head of Department V that Professor Roman Ingarden “keeps in touch with a Jesuit priest under inves­tigation, Fr. Popiel Jan – rector of the Jesuit College in Krakow, at Kopernika St. 26. Dr Ingarten [sic] often visits Fr. Popiel in the monastery and vice versa, Fr. Popiel pays calls to Dr. Ingarten’s place”26. In the years 1950-1957 Father Jan Popiel served as rector of the Jesuit College in Krakow, at Kopernika St.27. In November 1952, Ingarden was formally transferred from Krakow to the Institute of Philosophy at the Faculty of Philosophy and Social Studies of the University of Warsaw, where he worked until 1956. However, he was still banned from teaching28. In October 1953, a note was issued stating that “Ingarden received a year-long paid leave, the above is associated with a hostile way of teaching”29. There is an undated opinion prepared by the first secretary of the Fundamental Party Organization of the Polish United Workers’ Party at the Jagiellonian University Bogdan Kędziorek in the personal files of Ingarden as an employee of the Jagiellonian University. He wrote the following about Professor Ingarden: Definite idealist and an enemy of materialism. One of the most prominent rep­resentatives of the so-called Husserlism. In his lectures he completely leaves out Marxist philosophy, he only requires knowledge of philosophy until 1830. During exams he asks questions meant to guide towards issues of Marxist philosophy, but 26 Ibid., f. 2, “Letter from Capt. Z. Gliński to the head of Department V, June 5, 1953,” 11. 27 For bio see: Ludwik Grzebień in cooperation with a team of Jesuit Priests, eds., En­cyklopedia wiedzy o jezuitach na ziemiach Polski i Litwy 1564-1995 (Krakow: Wyższa Szkoła Filozoficzno-Pedagogiczna “Ignatianum”, and WAM, 2004), 529. For more on the invigilation see: Andrzej Paweł Bieś and Filip Musiał, eds., Komunistyczny aparat represji wobec jezuitów prowincji Polski południowej (Krakow: Instytut Pamięci Naro­dowej. Komisja Ścigania Zbrodni przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu, and WAM, 2014). 28 According to Zofia Majewska, Ingarden’s failure to find an apartment was not his reason for leaving Warsaw. See: Majewska, Książeczka, 72. 29 AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 2, “Memo, Krakow, October 10, 1953,” 12. in order to criticize and try to ridicule them (He accuses materialistic philosophy of inconsistency, etc.). He speaks of Soviet science with undisguised utter irony. […] To sum up: Prof. Ingarden Roman is a determined, conscious enemy who should be stripped of his professorial position30. Ingarden’s activity from this period was deemed “hostile” by the security offi­cers. According to Ingarden, in the early 1950s, “UB [Department of Security] spies, instigators” who reported on his teaching methods to the Ministry also attended his lectures and seminar31. On June 1, 1955, in a report to Capt. Karol Waluszkiewicz, the deputy head of Division III of the Voivodeship Office for Public Security Affairs in Krakow, Sylwester Kubiak, senior clerk of Section 6 of Division III, W.O. informed about the registration of Ingarden in the general information register32. In operational language, this meant the security apparatus is treating Ingarden as a ‘person of interest’. After the October Thaw, by decision of the Council of the Faculty of Philosophy and History of December 1956, Roman Ingarden was offered a job at the Jagiellonian University. In February 1957, he began lecturing, in September 1957 he took over the leadership of the Chair of Philosophy33. Professor Henryk Barycz, the dean of the Faculty of Philosophy and History, wrote about him: Prof. Dr. Roman Ingarden is one of the most outstanding philosophers (not histori­ans of philosophy) of the modern day. As a representative of the phenomenological direction Prof. Roman Ingarden is recognized in philosophy all over the world 34. As a result of the transformations, Prof. Izydora Dąmbska also joined the 30 JUA, “Opinion on Prof. Roman Ingarden developed by the first secretary of the Fundamental Party Organization of the Polish United Workers’ Party at the Jagiellonian University Bogdan Kędziorek, [n.d.],” N. pag. 31 Ingarden, “Sprawozdanie,” 223. 32 AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 2, “Report on registration in general information register, Krakow, June 1, 1955,” 9. 33 JUA, “Letter from the rector of the Jagiellonian University Prof. Zygmunt Grodziński to Prof. Roman Ingarden, Krakow, October 29, 1957,” N. pag. 34 Ibid., “[Opinion on Prof. Roman Ingarden developed by the dean of the Faculty of Philosophy and History Prof. Henryk Barycz], Krakow, October 4, 1957,” N. pag. Roman W. Ingarden In the Files of the Security Service Jagiellonian University. A rapid development of philosophy has appeared after the period of stagnation. Under Prof. Ingarden’s leadership employment at the Chair was given to Danuta Gierulanka, PhD, Maria Gołaszewska, PhD, Andrzej Półtawski, M.A. The scholars transferred from the dissolved Chair of Marxism-Le­ninism to the Department of Philosophy of Nature included: Deputy Professor Zdzisław Augustynek, PhD, Zbigniew Majewski, M.A., Michał Hempoliński, M.A. and Stanisław Surma, M.A. The staff of the Chair of the History of Philo­sophy under Professor Dąmbska consisted of, among others: Daniela Gromska, PhD, Władysław Stróżewski, M.A., Janina Makota, M.A.35. In 1958 Ingarden became a regular member of the Polish Academy of Sciences. In 1959 he became dean of the Faculty of Philosophy and History. After the Thaw, he had no problems in obtaining a passport and repre­sented the University at congresses and scientific meetings: in Venice in 1956 and 1958, in Louvain in 1956, in Freiburg in 1957, in Göttingen in 1958. In May 1959 he took part in the international philosophical congress dedicated to Bergson (May 17th-19th) in Paris. From September 1959 to the end of January 1960 he stayed in the United States, where he conducted lectures at several universities36. On September 5, 1960 he delivered a lecture at the Fourth Inter­national Congress of Aesthetics in Greece37. Unfortunately, Professor. Roman Ingarden’s passport files, which would provide a lot of important information about his travels abroad, have not been preserved. On December 9, 1959, the Security Service in Krakow established a record and observation case code-named ‘Black’ resuming the surveillance of Professor. Ingarden38. Because of the Poznan strikes in June 1956, and then Władysław 35 Pasenkiewicz, “Filozofia i logika,” 43. 36 JUA, “Letter from the Vice-Rector for Scientific Affairs of the Jagiellonian Univer­sity Prof. Jan Weyssenhoff to Prof. Roman Ingarden regarding the matter of granting leave, Krakow, May [n.d.d.], 1959,” N. pag.; ibid., “Letter from the Vice-Rector for Scientific Affairs of the Jagiellonian University Prof. Kazimierz Piwarski to Prof. Ro­man Ingarden regarding the matter of granting leave, Krakow, November 21, 1959,” N. pag.; Terlecki, Profesorowie UJ, 125-6. 37 JUA, “Letter from Prof. dr. Roman Ingarden to the Rectorate of the Jagiellonian University, Krakow, September 29, 1960,” N. pag. 38 The record and observation case was put in operation in order to detect possible Gomułka’s rise to power in Polish United Workers’ Party in October of the same year, the changes also affected the security apparatus. The Security Service was established as a hidden part of the structures of the Voivodeship Headquarters of the Citizens’ Militia. The Section 2 of Division III of the Secret Service became responsible for the surveillance of academic communities and higher education institutions39. Second lieutenant Józef Biel, an officer of Division III, treated the suspicions of Department III of the Ministry of Interior that: “while being in France, he contacted Prof. Stanisław Kot – a leading activist of the Polish People’s Party in exile. Currently, Ingarden regularly meets with people who remain in contact with Kot”40, as a basis for opening a case against Professor. Ingarden. One of the first documents in this case was the so-called list of correspon­ dence contacts, i.e. a list of people who a given person corresponded with based on reviewed letters of the said individual. It covers the years 1959-1961 and contains 43 names41. At the end of March 1960 2nd Lt. Józef Biel, an employee of Section 2 of Division III, arranged that “special attention will be paid to the surveillance of Roman Ingarden’s correspondence” with the deputy head of the Division “W” of the Security Service of the Voivodeship Headquarters of the Citizens’ Militia in Krakow, Lt. Zofia Glanowska. “As soon as it was evi­ dent that the original copies of the letters could not be delivered on a given day, photocopies of all documents of the figurehead will be made.42” The inspection intentions of people considered dangerous to the system in advance. See: Filip Musiał, Podręcznik bezpieki. Teoria pracy operacyjnej Służby Bezpieczeństwa w świetle wydaw­nictw resortowych Ministerstwa Spraw Wewnętrznych PRL (1970-1989) (Krakow, and Warszawa: Instytut Pamięci Narodowej, 2007), 310; AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “De­cision to open a record and observation case, Krakow, December 9, 1959,” 6. 39 For more on the structures of the Secret Service in Krakow, see: Wojciech Frazik, “Struktury organizacyjne Służby Bezpieczeństwa w województwie krakowskim w latach 1956-1990,” in Strażnicy sowieckiego imperium, 65-87. 40 AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “Decision to open a record and observation case, Krakow, December 9, 1959,” 6. 41 The list was started in February 1960 and more letters were added to it as time progressed (on the document in different handwriting). See: AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “Roman Ingarden’s correspondence contacts, Krakow, February 29, 1960,” 9-10. 42 Ibid., f. 1, “Memo of an officer of Section 2 of Division III of the Secret Service of the Roman W. Ingarden In the Files of the Security Service of correspondence consisted in the secret viewing of letters by officers of the “W” Division in a separate room at the post office43. Part of the letters concerned family matters (correspondence with his wife and sons44: Roman Stanisław and Janusz and the extended family), while an­other portion involved his contacts with individuals from the academic world, including: Professor Wiktor Weintraub45, Professor Stanisław Wędkiewicz46, Voivodeship Headquarters of the Citizens’ Militia 2nd Lt. Józef Biel, March 29, 1960,” 76. 43 For more see: Monika Komaniecka, Pod obserwacją i na podsłuchu. Rzeczowe środki pracy operacyjnej aparatu bezpieczeństwa w województwie krakowskim w latach 1945-1990 (Krakow: Dante, 2014), 103-23, 389-417. 44 Roman Stanisław Ingarden (1920-2011), professor of physics at the University of Wroclaw, from 1966 professor at the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń. Janusz Ingarden (1923-2005), an architect, worked in the Presidium of the National Council of the City of Krakow as deputy chief architect of Krakow, and in the years 1966-1972 as the chief architect. 45 Wiktor Weintraub (1908-1988), in the years 1954-1978 professor of Slavic studies at Harvard University in the United States, researcher of Old Polish and Romantic literature. For bio see Fitowa, Stanisław Kot – uczony i polityk, 335-6. In a letter from September 28, 1959 to Prof. Weintraub Ingarden expressed indignation at the way the American authorities treated him due to problems in obtaining a visa to the US. He wrote in a letter: […] had I known that I would face this kind of struggle, having to wait for a visa for weeks and having to be exposed to so many distressing situations, I would have never decided to accept the invitation to go to the States and to receive the benefits from the Ford Foundation (for which I am, of course, very grateful and much obliged to the institutions, namely the Ford Foundation and Harvard University). It is only because I have already given my word to come and give lectures, that I have not given up on this travel yet. I think that those who invited me had to know that I posed no danger to the United States, and that as a result the whole matter could have been dealt with in such a way that I wouldn’t be exposed to this whole affair. […] See AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “Analysis of ‘W’ documents concerning Roman Ingarden (period from September 25, 1959 to August 7, 1960), Krakow, August 19, 1960,” 20-1; ibid., “Roman Ingarden’s correspondence contacts,” 9. 46 Stanisław Wędkiewicz (1888-1963), literary historian, linguist, in 1947-1960 the head of the Polish Academy of Learning’s Scientific Station (later the Polish Academy of Sciences’) in Paris. In a letter from April 14, 1960 he expressed his gratitude to Fr. Włodzimierz Sedlak47, Professor Tadeusz Czeżowski48, Professor Bohdan Lachert49, Jean Bourilly50, and academic institutions51. The inspected letters painted for the officer of Group 2 of Division III Czesław Garbacz an image of a scholar maintaining lively contacts with the academic community both in the country and abroad, one often invited to lecture at university centers, including in the US, Greece and Switzerland. The officer wrote: “A considerable number of documents indicates that Ingarden is very popular among academics not only Prof. Ingarden for sending the work On Literary Works. See: AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “Roman Ingarden’s correspondence contacts,” 9. 47 Ks. Włodzimierz Sedlak (1911-1993), priest, founder of the Polish bioelectronics school, professor of the Catholic University of Lublin. He asked Ingarden to review his work Filozoficzne podstawy fizyki relatywistycznej [Philosophical foundations of relativistic physics]. See: AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “Analysis of ‘W’ documents con­ cerning Roman Ingarden,” 21. 48 Tadeusz Czeżowski (1889-1981), philosopher, logician and ethicist, student of Kazimierz Twardowski, from 1945 working at the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń. See: Włodzimierz Tyburski and Ryszard Wiśniewski, eds., Tadeusz Czeżowski (1889-1981). Dziedzictwo idei: logika, filozofia, etyka (Toruń: Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika, 2002). In letters from May 15, 1960 and June 5, 1960 he informed about his academic work. See: AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “Roman Ingarden’s correspondence contacts,” 9. 49 Bohdan Lachert (1900-1987), architect, professor at the Warsaw University of Tech­ nology, representative of the avant-garde. In a letter from March 28, 1960, Prof. Lachert wrote to consult Ingarden about his architectural work. See: AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “Analysis of ‘W’ documents concerning Roman Ingarden,” 21. 50 Jean Bourilly (1911-1971), French translator and historian of Polish literature. In a letter from April 25, 1960, Prof. Bourilly informed that he would come to Krakow to receive an award granted by the PEN Club for translators (for translating the works of Juliusz Słowacki). See: AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “Roman Ingarden’s correspondence contacts,” 9. 51 The correspondence came from the Polish Philosophical Society in Warsaw (letter from January 29, 1960: notification of the date of the general meeting), from the Institut International de Philosophie Paris (letter from April 25, 1960: invitation to take part in philosophical discussions on the limits and criteria of knowledge that were to be held in Switzerland on September 12-15, 1960), from the Polish Academy of Sciences (letter from May 9, 1960). See: ibid. Roman W. Ingarden In the Files of the Security Service in the country, but also abroad. Many professors are sending Ingarden academic papers asking for his opinion on the subject”52. In the second half of March 1960, an officer of Group 2 of Division III of the Security Service of the Voivodeship Headquarters of the Citizens’ Militia in Krakow, Stanisław Topór, developed a plan for talks with Professor Ingarden53. In January 1960 Ingarden returned from a trip around the US. In May 1959 he stayed in France, where he met with Stanisław Kot54. This information pro­vided to the Department III of the Ministry of Interior of the Krakow Security Service became the reason for the establishment of a record and observation case in December 1959. The Security Service assumed that Ingarden could have brought letters from Prof. Stanisław Kot and other activists of the Polish People’s Party in exile and could have also planned on meeting with its sympathizers. Lt. Topór intended to undertake operational activities enabling the identifi­cation of these individuals. Ingarden’s surveillance, the tapping of his phone calls, inspection of his correspondence and talks with him were all to serve this purpose55. The request to implement the plan was made on March 23, 1960 and was received by Maj. Jan Gibski, the head of Division III of the Security Service of the Voivodeship Headquarters of the Citizens’ Militia in Krakow, to be accepted provided that Department III of the Ministry of Interior in Warsaw consents to it. The Head of Division II of Department III approved the request and appointed Maj. Gibski to talk to Professor Ingarden56. Under the guise of questioning about impressions from a foreign trip, the Service intended to obtain 52 AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “Analysis of ‘W’ documents concerning Roman Ingarden,” 20-1. 53 AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “Report on permission to conduct interviews with Roman Ingarden, Krakow, March 23, 1960,” 11-3. 54 Alina Fitowa, “Stanisław Kot w świetle prywatnej korespondencji,” in Stanisław Kot – uczony i polityk, 152. 55 AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “Report on permission to conduct interviews with Roman Ingarden,” 11-3. 56 Ibid., f. 1, “Letter from the head of Division II of Department III of the Ministry of Interior in Warsaw Capt. Adam Malik to the head of Division III of the Security Service of the Voivodeship Headquarters of the Citizens’ Militia in Krakow, April 15, 1960,” 14. information on activists of the Polish People’s Party in exile: Stanisław Lam57, Stanisław Wędkiewicz and Stanisław Kot The conversation was to be of an informative nature: No persons of interest shall be mentioned directly. It shall be attempted to show him that due to the fact of his being abroad he could have met different individuals who are hostile and who could have possibly approached him in order to gain information. Examples from the press – of the use of some people for political purposes directed against our State – shall be brought up58. The purpose of the conversation was explained by Lt. Topór in the next passage: A conversation with the individual in question will bring a lot of benefits in terms of exploring him as a man, his psyche and his attitude towards politics and our apparatus. In no way shall the conversation have the nature of recruitment. If, however, the individual himself begins to talk about the persons and topics of interest to us, then we shall listen to him and arrange a specific meeting in a proper way59. No report regarding this conversation has been preserved in the Secret Ser­vice’s files. According to my findings, the conversation did not come to pass in the first half of 1960, but no information as to the reasons can be found. Information about the interview held in August 1960 before Ingarden’s de­parture to France contained in the report of April 3, 1963 is incorrect. In 1960 Ingarden did not visit France, instead in August of the same year he obtained a passport for his travels to Greece, Austria and Switzerland. In the 57 Stanisław Lam (1891-1965), publisher, bibliophile, journalist, critic and historian of literature, since 1944 head and editor of the Polish Bookstore in Paris. 58 AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “Report on permission to conduct interviews with Roman Ingarden,” 12. 59 Ibid. Roman W. Ingarden In the Files of the Security Service end, Professor Ingarden’s conversation with a Secret Service officer took place on October 24, 196160. On March 25, 1960, the Secret Service tapped the telephone in Prof. Ingarden’s apartment61. The wiretap provided Department III with the information that Prof. Ingarden contacted a group of 17 people, and among them he maintained regular and systematic contact with 10 people62, including: Prof. Adam Bochnak63, Prof. Karol Estreicher64, Prof. Jan Dąbrowski65, Prof. Kazimierz Pasenkiewicz66, 60 AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “Report of an operational officer of Group 2 of Division III of the Security Service of the Voivodeship Headquarters of the Citizens’ Militia in Krakow 2nd Lt. Czesław Garbacz, April 3, 1963,” 98; ibid., f. 1, “Memo regarding Roman Ingarden’s travels abroad in the years 1955-1962, Krakow, May 24, 1962,” 93; ibid., f. 1, “Memo prepared on the basis of data from Department ‘C’ on Prof. Ingar­den Roman’s travels abroad since 1955, November 21, 1962,” 94. See also: Terlecki, Profesorowie UJ, 131. 61 The installation of a telephone in the apartment at Biskupia St. had to take place between the middle of June 1950 and the beginning of March 1960, since in a personal survey filled out at the Jagiellonian University on June 14, 1950 Ingarden wrote that he did not have a business or private telephone. See JUA, “Personal Survey, Krakow, June 14, 1950,” N. pag.; AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “Analysis of materials from the telecommunications company regarding the subject of the record and observation case code-named ‘Dean’ from March 26, 1960 to August 16, 1960, Krakow, August 8, 1960,” 18-9. 62 AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “Analysis of materials from the telecommunications company,” 18-9. 63 Adam Bochnak (1899-1974), art historian, professor of the Jagiellonian University, director of the National Museum. See: Adam Bochnak, “Historia sztuki w Uniwer­sytecie Jagiellońskim,” in Studia z dziejów Wydziału Filozoficzno-Historycznego, 243-4. 64 Karol Estreicher (1906-1984), art historian, professor of the Jagiellonian University, director of the Jagiellonian University Museum in 1951-1976. See: ibid., 248-9. 65 Jan Dąbrowski (1890-1965), historian, professor of the Jagiellonian University, member of the Polish Academy of Learning and the Polish Academy of Sciences. 66 Kazimierz Pasenkiewicz (1897-1995), logician, philosopher, member of the Cen­tral Committee of the Polish United Workers’ Party in 1948-1952, professor of the Jagiellonian University. Prof. Izydora Dąmbska67, Prof. Wiktor Jakubowski, Dr. Tadeusz Gołaszewski68, Fr. Jan Popiel and Prof. Sylwiusz Mikucki69. Another means of invigilation of Prof. Ingarden was an observation conducted by officers of Division “B” in Krakow. It lasted from March 31 to April 5, 1960, and in the opinion of Maj. Tadeusz Mrowiec, the head of this department, it “was not a difficult one, because the party in question is an elderly person, he walked slowly and there was no indication he was aware of being led”70. The notes from the observation refer to him by the code name ‘Lonely’. Agents of Division “B” noted that every day the professor would go to the Chair of Philosophy at Manifestu Lipcowego St. (currently Józefa Piłsudskiego St.), where he would stay for two or three hours. In addition, he would often walk with a dog near his apartment at Biskupia St. and in the Planty Park. Division “B” has determined that people remaining in contact with Prof. Ingarden included71: Prof. Sylwiusz Mikucki, Prof. Danuta Gierulanka72, a student of Professor’s Maria Gołaszewska73 and 67 Izydora Dąmbska (1904-1983), representative of the Lvov-Warsaw school of philosophy, in 1957-1964 professor of the Jagiellonian University, removed for po­litical reasons in 1964 with a ban on practicing as an academic teacher, later worked at the Institute of Philosophy and Sociology of the Polish Academy of Sciences. 68 At the time he worked at the Chair of Pedagogy of the Jagiellonian University and was the husband of one of Prof. Ingarden’s students, Maria Gołaszewska. 69 Sylwiusz Mikucki (1898-1983), historian, researcher of auxiliary sciences of history, mainly diplomacy and heraldry. 70 AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “[Surveillance] Report of the head of Division ‘B’ of the Security Service of the Voivodeship Headquarters of the Citizens’ Militia in Krakow Maj. Tadeusz Mrowiec to the head of the Division III, April 8, 1960,” 52. 71 Ibid., f. 1, “Memo of an operational officer of Division III of the Security Service of the Voivodeship Headquarters of the Citizens’ Militia in Krakow 2nd Lt. Józef Biel, April 12, 1960,” 78. 72 Danuta Gierulanka (1909-1995), philosopher, mathematician, in the years 1958-1962 at the Chair of Philosophy of the Jagiellonian University. 73 Maria Gołaszewska (1926-2015), philosopher, aesthetician, colleague of Roman Ingarden, from 1974 professor of the Jagiellonian University, creator and head of the Aesthetic Department at the Jagiellonian University. Roman W. Ingarden In the Files of the Security Service Prof. Wojsław Molé74. During the observation, attention was paid to Ingarden’s frequent visits at the post office at Garbarska St. 2. They took place on March 30 (when he spent eight minutes there) and twice on April 1, at 9.20 a.m. – three minutes, and at 12.07 p.m. – two minutes. The first time the investigators followed the professor inside the post office: “At the post office, ‘Lonely’ approached window 4, where he took out a 30x20x4 package wrapped in gray paper and tied with a string, from his briefcase and paid the due amount (how much he paid and to whom the parcel was addressed, was not determined)”75. The next time – on April 1 – the intelligence officers made the decision not to enter the post office, fearing exposure, since the office was of modest size76. The observation concluded that the professor was fulfilling his professional duties and meeting with his students and colleagues. Prof. Ingarden remained a subject of investigative activities of the Krakow Security Service. The next means of surveillance was to be direct communica­tion77. The report of an officer from March 23, 1960 on the intended initiation of a conversation was accepted by Maj. Jan Gibski, the head of Division III of the of the Security Service of the Voivodeship Headquarters of the Citizens’ Militia in Krakow, and the management of Department III of the Ministry of the Interior. However, the conversation did not take place in the first half of the year78. In August 1960, Ingarden received permission from the Ministry of Interior to travel to Greece, Austria and Switzerland with his son Janusz79. De­ 74 Wojsław Molé (1886-1973), a Slovenian professor, later obtained Polish citizenship, professor of art history of the Jagiellonian University in the years 1925-1960, with the exception of the war years. See AINR Kr 1546/150, “Passport files of Wojsław Molé.” 75 AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “Communiqué from the surveillance of Roman Ingarden, born on 1883, residing in Krakow at Biskupia St. 14/15 on March 30, 1960 from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., Krakow, April 5, 1960,” 53-5. 76 Ibid., f. 1, “Communiqué from surveillance of individual code-named ‘Lonely’ on April 1 1960 from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., Krakow, April 5, 1960,” 58-9. 77 The interviews conducted by the officers could have several different purposes. For more see: Musiał, Podręcznik bezpieki, 219-28. 78 For more on the topic see footnote 59. 79 AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “Memo of an operational officer of Group 2 Division III partment III instructed the management of Division III in Krakow to have the talk with him upon his receipt of the passports. Despite the arrangements made by the deputy head of this division, Maj. Chrząstek with the management of the Office of Foreign Passports of the Voivodeship Headquarters of the Citizens’ Militia in Krakow with regard to setting the date of Ingarden’s receipt of the passport, it turned out that both he and his son had obtained their passports at the Ministry of Interior in Warsaw. In this situation, the Secret Service in Krakow had no grounds for calling them in for an interview80. This took place a year later – in August 1961 Ingarden went to the 11th International Congress of Philosophical Societies of French Language in Montpellier, lasting from September 4 to 7, 1961, together with his son Janusz, who, however, had not received a passport. Maj. Adam Chrząstek, the deputy head of Division III, warned Prof. Ingarden against contacting Polish People’s Party’s activists in France in the form of ‘friendly advice’: […] we believe that Stanisław Kot, who knows you personally and vice versa, might want to meet with you. Perhaps not even Kot personally, but someone from his circle might attempt to talk to you in order to find out about the situation in the country, etc. I think that you, Professor, understand our intentions well. We would not want anything to harm your reputation. The aim of the conversation was “a warning and simultaneous sensitization of the aforementioned to any contacts that may occur during his stay in France”81. of the Security Service of the Voivodeship Headquarters of the Citizens’ Militia in Krakow 2nd Lt. Czesław Garbacz, August 19, 1960,” 84. 80 Ibid., f. 1, “Memo of [the deputy head of Division III of the Security Service of the Voivodeship Headquarters of the Citizens’ Militia in Krakow] Maj. Adam Chrząstek, August 22, 1960,” 85; ibid., f. 1, “Memo of the deputy head of Division III of the Security Service of the Voivodeship Headquarters of the Citizens’ Militia in Krakow Maj. Adam Chrząstek, September 1, 1960,” 86. 81 Ibid., f. 1, “Report on an interview held on August 25, 1961 with the dean of the Faculty of Philosophy and History of the Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Prof. Ro­man Ingarden before his departure for France, Krakow, August 26, 1961,” 87. Roman W. Ingarden In the Files of the Security Service According to the officer’s report, Professor Ingarden was very surprised that a representative of the Security Service was talking to him. Despite his repeated trips abroad, “nobody had particularly talked to him before. The case was usu­ally over with after settling matters strictly related to filling out the form and receiving the passport upon leaving his ID card”. This quote, being an account of Prof. Ingarden’s words by the officer, indicates that this was the first contact be­tween the professor and the Security Service. Maj. Chrząstek explained that the reason for the conversation was the difficult political situation in Europe after August 1961. It referred to the situation in Berlin, when on August 13, 1961 the so-called ‘Action Rose’ commenced, as an effect of which the Soviet occupation zone in Berlin was to be separated by barbed wire fences. A few days later, the building of the Berlin Wall began, separating the zone of Soviet influence from the Western zone. The officer made it clear that in a situation of tension between the parties of the Cold War “provocation, even in relation to individual people, would not be difficult”. So, it was not so much a warning, but a clear threat to refrain from taking any anti-systemic actions. It seems Prof. Ingarden took it that way. The professor assured that he had not met with Stanisław Kot and had no intention of doing so. The officer reported Ingarden’s statement: In 1958 Stanisław Kot wrote a letter to him, to which he did not reply to, and he did not want to contact him at all. Last year when he was in Paris, Kot Stanisław wanted to see him too, but he, that is Ingarden, ignored this attempt and let him know he had no desire for such a meeting82. From further notes it appears that, during the professor’s stay at the Polish Library in Paris, Ingarden quickly left the institution as soon as he learned that Prof. Kot intended on coming there. In an interview with the officer Prof. Ingarden clearly denied any relations with Prof. Stanisław Kot, not mentioning a meeting with him in May 1960. The report shows that Maj. Chrząstek was clearly satisfied with the conversation, as he learned about Stanisław Kot’s letter to Ingarden and his attitude to Prof. Kot. 82 Ibid., 88. The officer wrote: “He was very polite throughout the conversation, showing his loyal attitude to the current system, invoking the authority of Minister Żółkiewski, who reportedly would be willing to issue an opinion regarding his character”83. Having analyzed this conversation, one can conclude that Prof. Ingarden intelli­gently evaded some issues during the questioning, finding his way out of a difficult situation. He was probably convinced that he could talk about what the Service already knew (the letter from Professor Kot from 1958), while remaining silent about their meeting in Paris (probably well organized and only known to several people). Prof. Ingarden clearly distanced himself from Prof. Stanisław Kot in his conversation with the officer, and the officer considered his statement credible. The Security Service obtained confirmation of Prof. Ingarden’s position from the wiretap at Józef Japa’s apartment. Japa, a medical doctor, was Prof. Kot’s son­in-law and lived in Krakow at Straszewskiego St. The Secret Service had set up a wiretap code named ‘Doctor’ in his apartment, probably as early as in 1955. In the conversation of Dr. Japa with Prof. Wiktor Jakubowski on the topic of Ingarden, Dr. Japa stated that Ingarden saw Prof. Kot while in Paris, but he did not talk to him because “he is such an idealist, and very cautious because of the situation he’s in”84. Professor Ingarden’s files contain two profiles drawn up by officer Czesław Garbacz. The first, from November 1960, in addition to a biography and the history of his academic career, contained an assessment of his activity: At the university Ingarden is considered a man with extensive academic knowledge and, as a philosopher, he is valued by fellow scholars of the Jagiellonian University. Politically, he is a person who strongly adheres to idealistic ideology. He is an opponent of materialistic ideology and often tries to undermine and ridicule it. Nevertheless, he sees the achievements of our political system in the economic field and he does not deny these facts, but he does not popularize them either. In his lectures, he completely leaves out Marxist philosophy, he only requires knowledge of philosophy until 1830. He criticizes materialistic philosophy for inconsistency85. 83 Ibid., 89. 84 AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “Letter from the head of Division III Maj. Jan Gibski to the head of Department III of the Ministry of Interior in Warsaw, Krakow, May 6, 1959,” 47-8. 85 Ibid., f. 1, “Profile of Roman Ingarden, Krakow, November 22, 1960,” 23-4. Roman W. Ingarden In the Files of the Security Service Another profile comes from October of the next year and repeats the previous content86. An analysis of the Secret Service documents allows to notice the con­vergence of profiles developed by its officers with the opinion of the first secretary of the Fundamental Party Organization of the Polish United Workers’ Party at the Jagiellonian University. Both documents contain the same terms and phrases. Most probably the Secret Service officer had the opportunity to access Prof. In­garden’s personal file at the Jagiellonian University and become acquainted with the opinion it contained, which he then rewrote. In October 1961, Prof. Roman Ingarden was registered as a person of in­terest for the operational surveillance case code named ‘Senate’87. His contacts, apart from those already ascertained and known to the Secret Service, included Prof. Tadeusz Kotarbiński88, Prof. Władysław Tatarkiewicz89 and Stanisław Lam, the manager of the Polish Bookstore in Paris. The address of the latter (he lived in one of the Paris hotels) was being used for receiving correspondence addressed to Prof. Stanisława Kot90. 86 Ibid., f. 1, “Profile of the subject of the group surveillance case code-named ‘Senate’, Krakow, October 11, 1961,” 25-7. 87 The matter of operational observation consisted in ensuring, by means of all necessary operational measures, the influx of information on the persons under observation in order to recognize their hostile activities, reveal malicious intentions and counteract their implementation with various means. See: Musiał, Podręcznik bezpieki, 312; AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “Registration sheet [of Roman Ingarden] under investigation as part of a group observation case, Krakow, October 23, 1961,” 31-2. 88 Tadeusz Kotarbiński (1886-1981), philosopher, logician, representative of the Lvov-Warsaw School, professor at the University of Warsaw. 89 Władysław Tatarkiewicz (1886-1980), philosopher, historian of philosophy, aesthetician, art historian, professor of the University of Warsaw, associated with the Polish Academy of Learning and the Polish Academy of Sciences. 90 AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “List of contact of Roman Ingarden, residing in Krakow at Biskupia St.,” 28. See: Stanisław Salmonowicz, “Rozmowy ze Stanisławem Kotem,” in Szkice z dziejów ustroju i prawa poświęcone pamięci Ireny Malinowskiej-Kwiatkowskiej, eds. Marcin Kwiecień, and Marian Małecki (Krakow: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1997), 144. In the early 1960s Roman Ingarden spoke up about research. During the Thaw, representatives of academic circles spoke out against the practices of the Stalinist period, limiting freedom of speech, censoring research results and limiting the freedom of choice of research methods. In the 48th issue of Przegląd Kulturalny [Cultural Review] from 1961, Ingarden published an article in which he advocated for the freedom of scientific discussion. The factual and balanced paper stated that science should be open to various trends and avoid ready interpretations. He suggested that scholars should always be ready to consider the views of others, and he warned against attachment to one way of seeing the world91. In April 1963, the Secret Service in Krakow discontinued the surveillance of Prof. Ingarden. 2nd Lt. Czesław Garbacz stated that Prof. Ingarden did not maintain contacts with Prof. A Kot that he was suspected of. In the conclusion of the analysis he stated: “In the course of the case, this individual was not found to have been engaged in any negative activity92”. This coincided with Ingarden’s retirement from the Jagiellonian University. Surveillance of Professor Roman Ingarden by the security apparatus in Kra­kow was conducted in the first half of the 1950s and in the years 1959-1963. During the Stalinist period, as he was considered a representative of idealistic philosophy, he was treated by the authorities as an opponent of the contempo­rary Marxist ideology. This was the reason for the repressions he experienced in that period: the loss of the professorial position, the deprivation of the right to teach and the transfer to the University of Warsaw. At the end of the 1950s, Ingarden yet again became a person of interest for the Security Service due to his numerous foreign travels as well as contacts with Prof. Stanisław Kot, an activist of the Polish People’s Party in exile. An entire range of operational measures taken against him (telephone tapping, surveillance, inspection of correspondence) did not produce any evidence of his engagement in espionage. In the Secret Ser­vice’s materials, Prof. Ingarden appears as a scholar who conducts research and maintains contacts with academic communities both in the country and abroad. 91 Zbigniew Romek, Cenzura a nauka historyczna w Polsce 1944-1970 (Warszawa: NERITON, and Instytut Historii PAN, 2010), 205-6. 92 AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “Report of an operational officer of Group 2 of Division III of the Security Service of the Voivodeship Headquarters of the Citizens’ Militia in Krakow 2nd Lt. Czesław Garbacz, April 3, 1963,” 98-9. Roman W. Ingarden In the Files of the Security Service Bibliography Archive of the Institute of National Remembrance • AINR 1546/150, “Passport files of Wojsław Mole.” • AINR Kr 010/9812, f. 1-4, “The operational surveillance case code-named ‘Senate’.” • AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “Analysis of ‘W’ documents concerning Roman In­garden (period from September 25, 1959 to August 7, 1960), Krakow, August 19, 1960:” 20-21. • AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “Analysis of materials from the telecommunications company regarding the subject of the record and observation case code-named ‘Dean’ from March 26, 1960 to August 16, 1960, Krakow, August 8, 1960:” 18-19. • AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “Communiqué from surveillance of individual code­named ‘Lonely’ on April 1/1960 from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., Krakow, April 5, 1960:” 58-59. • AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “Communiqué from the surveillance of Roman Ingarden, born on 1883, residing in Krakow at Biskupia St. 14/15 on March 30, 1960 from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., Krakow, April 5, 1960:” 53-55. • AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “Decision to open a record and observation case, Krakow, December 9, 1959:” 6. • AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “Letter from the head of Division II of Department III of the Ministry of Interior in Warsaw Capt. Adam Malik to the head of Division III of the Security Service of the Voivodeship Headquarters of the Citizens’ Militia in Krakow, April 15, 1960:” 14. • AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “Letter from the head of Division III Maj. Jan Gibski to the head of Department III of the Ministry of Interior in Warsaw, Krakow, May 6, 1959:” 47-48. • AINR Kr, 010/9813, f. 1, “List of contact of Roman Ingarden, residing in Krakow at Biskupia St:” 28. • AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “Memo of an officer of Section 2 of Division III of the Secret Service of the Voivodeship Headquarters of the Citizens’ Militia 2nd Lt. Józef Biel, March 29, 1960:” 76. • AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “Memo of an operational officer of Division III of the Security Service of the Voivodeship Headquarters of the Citizens’ Militia in Krakow 2nd Lt. Józef Biel, April 12, 1960:” 78. • AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “Memo of an operational officer of Group 2 Division III of the Security Service of the Voivodeship Headquarters of the Citizens’ Militia in Krakow 2nd Lt. Czesław Garbacz, August 19, 1960:” 84. • AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “Memo of [the deputy head of Division III of the Security Service of the Voivodeship Headquarters of the Citizens’ Militia in Krakow] Maj. Adam Chrząstek, August 22, 1960:” 85. • AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “Memo of the deputy head of Division III of the Security Service of the Voivodeship Headquarters of the Citizens’ Militia in Krakow Maj. Adam Chrząstek, September 1, 1960:” 86. • AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “Memo prepared on the basis of data from Depart­ment ‘C’ on Prof. Ingarden Roman’s travels abroad since 1955, November 21, 1962:” 94. • AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “Memo regarding Roman Ingarden’s travels abroad in the years 1955-1962, Krakow, May 24, 1962:” 93. • AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “Profile of Roman Ingarden, Krakow, November 22, 1960:” 23-24. • AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “Profile of the subject of the group surveillance case code-named ‘Senate’, Krakow, October 11, 1961:” 25-27. • AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “Registration sheet [of Roman Ingarden] under inves­tigation as part of a group observation case, Krakow, October 23, 1961:” 31-32. • AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “Report of an operational officer of Group 2 of Division III of the Security Service of the Voivodeship Headquarters of the Citizens’ Militia in Krakow 2nd Lt. Czesław Garbacz, April 3, 1963:” 98-99. • AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “Report on an interview held on August 25, 1961 with the dean of the Faculty of Philosophy and History of the Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Prof. Roman Ingarden before his departure for France, Krakow, August 26, 1961:” 87-89. • AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “Report on permission to conduct interviews with Roman Ingarden, Krakow, March 23, 1960:” 11-13. • AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “Roman Ingarden’s correspondence contacts, Krakow, February 29, 1960:” 9-10. Roman W. Ingarden In the Files of the Security Service • AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 1, “[Surveillance] Report of the head of Division ‘B’ of the Security Service of the Voivodeship Headquarters of the Citizens’ Militia in Krakow Maj. Tadeusz Mrowiec to the head of the Division III, April 8, 1960:” 52. • AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 2, File on Roman Ingarden, “[Telephonogram] from Department VII of the Ministry of Public Security [to] Voivodeship Office of Public Security [in Krakow], [Warsaw], July 15, 1948:” 16. • AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 2, “Letter from Capt. Z. Gliński to the head of De­partment V, June 5, 1953:” 11. • AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 2, “Letter from the deputy head of the Voivodeship Office of Public Security in Krakow to Department VII of the Ministry of Public Security Department in Warsaw, August 4, 1948:” 15. • AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 2, “[Memo]:" 7. • AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 2, “Memo, Krakow, October 10, 1953:” 12. • AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 2, “Official report, source ‘P’, received by: Brandstätter, Krakow, June 22, 1950:” 13. • AINR Kr 010/9813, f. 2, “Report on registration in general information register, Krakow, June 1, 1955:” 9. • AINR Kr 010/10151, f. 4, “File on Henryk Barycz, Analysis of cases of persons in contact with activists of Polish People’s Party in exile, Krakow, June 9, 1960.” Jagiellonian University Archive • JUA S III 246, “File on Roman Ingarden, Curriculum vitae, Krakow, May 14, 1948.” • JUA S III 246, “Personal Survey, Krakow, June 14, 1950.” • JUA “A copy of the letter from Minister Czesław Wycech to Professor Roman Ingarden, Warsaw, July 17, 1946.” • JUA “Letter from Prof. dr. Roman Ingarden to the Rectorate of the Jagiellonian University, Krakow, September 29, 1960.” • JUA “Letter from the rector of the Jagiellonian University Prof. Zygmunt Grodziński to Prof. Roman Ingarden, Krakow, October 29, 1957.” • JUA “Letter from the rector of the Jagiellonian University to Prof. Roman Ingarden, Krakow, December 5, 1951.” • JUA “Letter from the Vice-Rector for Scientific Affairs of the Jagiellonian University Prof. Jan Weyssenhoff to Prof. Roman Ingarden regarding the matter of granting leave, Krakow, May [n.d.d.], 1959.” • JUA “Letter from the Vice-Rector for Scientific Affairs of the Jagiellonian University Prof. Kazimierz Piwarski to Prof. Roman Ingarden regarding the matter of granting leave, Krakow, November 21, 1959.” • JUA “[Opinion on Prof. Roman Ingarden developed by the dean of the Faculty of Philosophy and History Prof. Henryk Barycz], Krakow, October 4, 1957.” • JUA “Opinion on Prof. Roman Ingarden developed by the first secretary of the Fundamental Party Organization of the Polish United Workers’ Party at the Jagiellonian University Bogdan Kędziorek, [n.d.].” Printed works • Bieś Andrzej Paweł, and Filip Musiał, eds. Komunistyczny aparat represji wobec jezuitów prowincji Polski południowej. Krakow: Instytut Pamięci Narodowej. Komisja Ścigania Zbrodni przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu, and WAM, 2014. • Bochnak, Adam. “Historia sztuki w Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim.” In Studia z dziejów Wydziału Filozoficzno-Historycznego Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, edited by Sylwiusz Mikucki, 223-263. Krakow: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagielloń­skiego, 1967. • Dybiec, Julian. Stanisław Kot (1885-1975). Krakow: Księgarnia Akade­micka, 2000. • Dybiec, Julian, ed. Złota księga Wydziału Historycznego. Krakow: Księgarnia Akademicka, 2000. • Fitowa, Alina, ed. Stanisław Kot – uczony i polityk. Pokłosie sesji naukowej. Krakow: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 2001. • Frazik, Wojciech. “Struktura organizacyjna Urzędu Bezpieczeństwa w woje­wództwie krakowskim w latach 1945-1956 w świetle aktów normatywnych.” In Strażnicy sowieckiego imperium. Urząd Bezpieczeństwa i Służba Bezpieczeństwa w Małopolsce 1945-1990, edited by Filip Musiał, and Michał Wenklar, 9-63. Krakow: Dante, 2009. • Frazik, Wojciech. “Struktury organizacyjne Służby Bezpieczeństwa w woje­wództwie krakowskim w latach 1956-1990.” In Strażnicy sowieckiego imperium. Roman W. Ingarden In the Files of the Security Service Urząd Bezpieczeństwa i Służba Bezpieczeństwa w Małopolsce 1945-1990, edited by Filip Musiał, and Michał Wenklar, 65-87. Krakow: Dante, 2009. • Frazik, Wojciech, and Filip Musiał, Mateusz Szpytma, Michał Wenklar. Ludzie bezpieki województwa krakowskiego. Obsada stanowisk kierowniczych Urzędu Bezpieczeństwa i Służby Bezpieczeństwa w województwie krakowskim w latach 1945-1990. Informator personalny, 2nd edition, revised and supplemented. Kra­kow: IPN.KŚZpNP, 2009. • Gołaszewska, Maria. Roman Ingarden. Człowiek i dzieło. Krakow: Uniwersytet Jagielloński, 1993. • Grzebień, Ludwik, in cooperation with a team of Jesuit Priests, eds. Encyklope­dia wiedzy o jezuitach na ziemiach Polski i Litwy 1564-1995. Krakow: Wyższa Szkoła Filozoficzno-Pedagogiczna “Ignatianum”, and WAM, 2004. • Hübner, Piotr. Nauka polska po II wojnie światowej – idee i instytucje. Warszawa: COM SNP, 1987. • Hübner, Piotr. Polityka naukowa w Polsce w latach 1944-1953. Geneza systemu, vol. 1-2. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1992. • Ingarden, Roman. “Sprawozdanie z działalności w Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim i wspomnienia z tego czasu”, comp. Jerzy Perzanowski. Kwartalnik Filozoficzny 27, no. 2 (1999): 216-228. • Ingarden, Roman Stanisław. Roman Witold Ingarden. Życie filozofa w okresie toruńskim (1921-1926). Toruń: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Koper­nika, 2000. • Jadczak, Ryszard. “Z dziejów spotkania szkoły lwowsko-warszawskiej z marksizmem.” Edukacja Filozoficzna 11 (1991): 99-114. • Jadczak, Ryszard, ed. Polskie Zjazdy Filozoficzne. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Uni­wersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, 1995. • Klimek, Rudolf, ed. Polski Październik 1956 roku na Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim. Materiały sympozjum naukowego zorganizowanego pod patronatem J.M. Rektora Prof. Franciszka Ziejki przez Uniwersytet Jagielloński, Instytut Pamięci Narodo­wej i Konsulat Generalny Republiki Węgierskiej w dniu 10 listopada 2001 roku w Krakowie. Krakow: Universitas, 2004. • Komaniecka, Monika. Pod obserwacją i na podsłuchu. Rzeczowe środki pracy ope­racyjnej aparatu bezpieczeństwa w województwie krakowskim w latach 1945-1990. Krakow: Dante, 2014. • Machcewicz, Paweł. Polski rok 1956. Warszawa: Mówią Wieki, 1993. • Majewska, Zofia. Książeczka o Ingardenie. Szkic biograficzny. Lublin: Wydaw­nictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, 1995. • Musiał, Filip. Podręcznik bezpieki. Teoria pracy operacyjnej Służby Bezpieczeń­stwa w świetle wydawnictw resortowych Ministerstwa Spraw Wewnętrznych PRL (1970-1989). Krakow: Wydawnictwo Towarzystwa Naukowego “Societas Vi­stulana”, 2007. • Pasenkiewicz, Kazimierz. “Filozofia i logika w Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim w latach 1945-1964.” In Studia z dziejów Wydziału Filozoficzno-Historycznego Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, edited by Sylwiusz Mikucki, 37-47. Krakow: Uni­wersytet Jagielloński, 1967. • Romek, Zbigniew. Cenzura a nauka historyczna w Polsce 1944-1970. Warszawa: NERITON, and Instytut Historii PAN, 2010. • Rutkowski, Tadeusz Paweł. “Kontakty Stanisława Kota z krajem (1947-1963) w działaniach operacyjnych UB/SB PRL.” In Nie ma wolności bez pamięci. Księga jubileuszowa dedykowana Profesorowi Ryszardowi Terleckiemu, edited by Włodzimierz Bernacki et al., 273-91. Krakow: WAM, 2009. • Rutkowski, Tadeusz Paweł. “Stanisław Kot i Polskie Stronnictwo Ludowe na emigracji oczami tajnych współpracowników Służby Bezpieczeństwa PRL.” In Chłopskie partie polityczne z Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej na emigracji 1945-1989, edited by Arkadiusz Indraszczyk, 189-209. Warszawa: Muzeum Historii Polskiego Ruchu Ludowego, 2009. • Rutkowski, Tadeusz Paweł. Stanisław Kot 1885-1975. Biografia polityczna. Warszawa: DiG, 2000. • Rutkowski, Tadeusz Paweł. Stanisław Kot 1885-1975. Między nauką a polityką. Warszawa: Muzeum Historii Polskiego Ruchu Ludowego, 2012. • Salmonowicz, Stanisław. “Rozmowy ze Stanisławem Kotem.” In Szkice z dziejów ustroju i prawa poświęcone pamięci Ireny Malinowskiej-Kwiatkowskiej, edited by Marcin Kwiecień, and Marian Małecki, 143-151. Krakow: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1997. • Stelmach, Jerzy, and Wacław Uruszczak, eds. Złota księga Wydziału Prawa i Administracji. Krakow: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 2000. • Stobiecki, Rafał. “Historia i historycy wobec nowej rzeczywistości. Z dziejów polskiej nauki historycznej w latach 1945-1951.” Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Historica 43 (1991): 163-87. Roman W. Ingarden In the Files of the Security Service • Stróżewski, Władysław. “Roman Ingarden (1893-1970).” In Złota księga Wy­działu Filozoficznego, edited by Justyna Miklaszewska, and Janusz Mizera, 253­ 78. Krakow: Księgarnia Akademicka, 2000. • Terlecki, Ryszard. Miecz i tarcza komunizmu. Historia aparatu bezpieczeństwa w Polsce 1944-1990. Krakow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 2009. • Terlecki, Ryszard. Profesorowie UJ w aktach UB i SB. Krakow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 2002. • Tyburski, Włodzimierz, and Ryszard Wiśniewski, eds. Tadeusz Czeżowski (1889­1981). Dziedzictwo idei: logika, filozofia, etyka. Toruń: Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika, 2002. • Wilkoszewska, Krystyna. Maria Gołaszewska. 50 lat w Uniwersytecie Jagiel­lońskim. Krakow: Uniwersytet Jagielloński, 1996. Leszek Sosnowski Roman Ingarden. Portrait of a Teacher Roman Ingarden. Portrait of a Teacher Leszek Sosnowski Roman Ingarden. Portrait of a Teacher History in general, including the history of philosophy, has its prophets, masters and craftsmen. Which category can you include Roman Ingarden in? An ambig­uous picture of the philosopher as a master emerges from the statements of his students. It unites them around this figure, but also distinguishes it from among other teachers, students and trends. The greatness of their master becomes part of them, marks them and, to some extent, makes them great themselves. In addition, it sometimes makes their period of apprenticeship under Ingarden special, extraor­dinary. The philosophical craft gives its journeymen very specific requirements that can be mastered in various ways. Without a doubt, the best of them is work under the supervision of a master of the profession. The term master, or its Latin and German equivalents of magister and Meister, have nowadays lost the subtle and profound meanings referring to professional competence and work ethic. Adjective descriptors in the highest degree – perfect, absolute, supreme, for example perfect professionalism, absolute knowledge or the highest morality, are not the sign of the loss of these features, the devaluation of meanings in con­temporary culture, because they possess the semantic property of strengthening a given feature or skill. In contemporary popular culture, we are dealing with different types of descriptors which in the form of prefixes super-, mega-, extra-, giga- or hyper- mainly bear the nature of exclamations. In semantics, they are referred to as intensifiers, which raises the as to question whether the intensifi­cation that occurs is one of the characteristics possessed by the object or rather of the emotional attitude on the part of the subject. In any case, their purpose is to draw attention to something that would not have been noticed in the in­formational chaos. In a sense, these exclamations are supposed to ‘drive up’ the value of something that lacks it. What actually takes place here is the definition of impact, increased exposure of an element in an aggregate of similar entities, so basically putting exclamative emphasis on an object (noun) in compounds such as super-hottie, mega-fraud, hyper-nationalism. There is no quantitative or qualitative measure in these expressions, because they are not defined here. Ingarden’s ‘apprenticeship’ took place in a different cultural atmosphere, in accordance with different models and values. First it was the family home, later secondary school and finally university. During his period of education there was no cult of professional competence, because work ethic was simply the norm. In any work, without exception, regardless of whether it was academic or practical, or related to everyday or eternal matters. Ingarden had his masters in each period, at every level of study, who were models in life and work, and whom he could imitate in life, professional and academic dimensions. Each dimension was naturally permeated by ethics, for each one was guided by the three Platonic virtues. In the last one of these dimensions, the academic one, Ingarden had great role models in both Lviv and Göttingen. In 2018 there were three anniversaries related to his teachers from both university centers. In 1938, Kazimierz Twardowski, Mścisław Wartenberg and Edmund Husserl passed away within short intervals of each other: Twardowski on February 11, Wartenberg on April 13 and Husserl on April 27. The first two did not significantly influence Ingarden’s philosophical development as a student, but they played an important role in later years in his personal and professional life. The third was the most important teacher for Ingarden, he was his Master, guiding his philosophical interests and career path choice. From this point of view, one can say that the current publication has a jubilee reference and, to some extent, it is also another of Ingarden’s jubilee anniversaries. There were already several of them, and each was similar in the particular sense of it gathering several generations of his indirect and direct students who were or felt connected with him or his philosophical thought. The present volume is different – in the eve of the fiftieth anniversary of Ing­arden’s death coming in 2020, it contains memories of his direct students and continuators of his philosophical work. For each of the contributors, Ingarden has always played an important, and often unique, role in their academic biography. Roman Ingarden. Portrait of a Teacher No doubt Ingarden was important to every student-disciple. In his memoirs and letters, he strongly emphasized the importance of his teachers. Here, the authors of this book take on a similar role, speaking in memory of their Teacher and Master. These recollections are as different from each other as the people who express them are in their life and academic biographies. However, in each of those it is easy to see that Ingarden played a formative role for each given author. He influenced the formation of their academic personality, defined their approach to philosophy and academia in general, for future professional years, and formed their life and moral attitudes. All the individuals presented in the volume took their Master’s path in various forms and passed on the values they learned from him to their own students. This is an important indicator of the position occupied by Ingarden at the time and of the educational and academic importance it possesses. Further remarks have been divided into two parts; the first concerns Ingarden as a teacher, and thus covers the interwar period. The second part presents the psychological and academic portrait of Ingarden, and thus talks about him as a person / personality and as an academic teacher. Ingarden as a secondary school teacher Ingarden was a teacher at secondary schools for 15 years from 1918 to 1933. It was a long and, as we know from his correspondence and memoirs, very intense practice of the teacher-academic. During this period he taught in four cities: Lublin, Warsaw, Toruń and Lviv1. Only in the first of them was he a bachelor, in the others he had to support a growing family. The number of teaching hours Work in each city differed in terms of the number of teaching hours, school subjects taught and additional duties required. In Lublin, Ingarden worked from 1 Not counting his work as a private tutor at the estate of Countess Tarnowska in Końskie. October 1, 1918 to June 30, 1919, teaching of the introduction to philosophy, mathematics, logic and German in three schools. In total, he had 32 mandatory school teaching hours. We do not know much about Ingarden’s life in this city. The brief correspondence with Kazimierz Twardowski does not reveal details from this period. “Not much new here in Lublin. There are no people with whom you could work academically and a total lack of books. These are the big things that are killing me here, and the reasons for why I want to get out of here at any cost”, he wrote to Twardowski [4/30/1919]. In a letter from June 11, 1919 he accurately presented his schedule for June, justifying the delay in correspondence: “In the morning I had lessons in one of the schools, in the afternoon there was a secondary school exam in the second school, then the en-trance exams, now a variety of work before the end of the school year”. In the same letter [6/11] Ingarden expressed his satisfaction at the end of his stay in Lublin: “I am very happy to move to Warsaw. I am expecting that my school activity[…] as much as academic will be more prolific than here”. In Warsaw Ingarden received a job as a teacher at the St. Adalbert Private Male Secondary School with a philological profile, commonly referred to as the Górski Secondary School. He worked there from September 1, 1919 to July 31, 1921, teaching mathematics and psychology. It was an important change in Ingar­den’s professional life for three reasons: he received a job “on much better terms than he could get in a state school”2; the number of teaching hours amounted to twenty-two hours a week3; he had easier contact with Lviv philosophers, who moved to the capital in large numbers, taking up work at the University of Warsaw, and much more time for academic work. However, all these advantages 2 See: “Letter to Kazimierz Twardowski written 19.05.1919,” The Digital Archive of Roman Ingarden, accessed March 20, 2018, http://ingarden.archive.uj.edu.pl/en/ archiwum/letter-to-kazimierz-twardowski-written-19-05-1919/. All other quotations from Ingarden’s letters to Twardowski’s come from this Archive: http://ingarden.archive. uj.edu.pl/home. The search engine on this website allows for search either by phrase or by the date of a specific letter. See also: Radosław Kuliniak and Dorota Leszczyna, Mariusz Pandura, comp., Korespondencja Romana Witolda Ingardena z Kazimierzem Twardowskim (Kęty: Wydawnictwo Marek Derewiecki, 2016). 3 Roman Stanisław Ingarden, Roman Witold Ingarden. Życie filozofa w okresie toruńskim (1921-1926) (Toruń: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, 2000), 40. Roman Ingarden. Portrait of a Teacher lost quite a bit of their importance fairly quickly, since the housing conditions were very difficult, prompting Ingarden to move to a better place for the family and himself. Stefan Błachowski, a friend from Göttingen, warned his younger friend about the danger an academic faces living in a small town4. Likewise, Edith Stein expressed her regret about him having to leave Warsaw, writing in a letter of October 9, 1920: “It would be a real shame if you had to leave Warsaw. I had had the impression that your place has been there for a long time. It is very important to live in an atmosphere where you can breathe freely”5. Ingarden worked in Toruń from August 31, 1921 to August 31, 1925, teach­ ing mathematics at a state secondary school. In addition, he took up lectures on psychology at the Naval School. In the secondary school he had 30 hours of mathematics and logic, as well as class supervision and two hours of private lessons6. He experienced many difficulties in working with the students, which resulted from their “hopeless level in mathematics”, as well as from the mental challenges of the young people he assessed very severely: “young people very intellectually undeveloped, unused to thinking [...], extremely dumb by nature – and finally rather lazy”[2/20/1922]. The students’ level of education imposed additional preparatory work on him. In addition, he often received requests for substitution. As he wrote to Twardowski, all this together “requires a lot of strength and patience from a teacher. After five hours of this kind of work, you leave completely intellectually broken” [2/20/1922]. He was deeply frustrated by the internal struggle with himself which resulted from his inability to choose a philosophy close to his heart. He reconciled the work of a teacher with the pursuit of his academic ambitions with the greatest difficulty and at the great expense. In the same letter to Twardowski he wrote: “A few years of this kind of work has to – if not kill – at least mentally dull a teacher” [2/20/1922]. After work he would rest at home for a bit, only to sit down to 4 Ibid., 44. 5 Święta Teresa Benedykta od Krzyża [St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross] – Edyta Stein, Autoportret z listów, pt. 3: Listy do Romana Ingardena, eds. Maria Amata Neyer, and Eberhard Avé-Lallemant, trans. Małgorzata Klentak-Zabłocka, and Andrzej Wajs (Krakow: Wydawnictwo Karmelitów Bosych, 2003), 196. 6 See: “Letter to Twardowski from February 20, 1922.” do his own research in the evening; “Despite my greatest efforts, I cannot start working for myself earlier than just around 6 o’clock in the evening. I am not capable of thinking any earlier [2/20/1922].” With the heavy load of teaching hours and such working conditions, it took great effort to write his habilitation dissertation. The worst thing is,” Ingarden concluded, “that if you do not sit in a certain field for 5-6 hours a day, you cannot really delve into the problems, you stop seeing things, your work becomes temporary and superficial. All this brings down a spir­itual dilemma, constant dissatisfaction with oneself in the face of unmet spiritual needs [ibidem]. Ingarden was determined, he treated philosophy as a calling that gave mean­ing to his existence. Spiritual dilemmas became a stimulus for choosing his next job. “All this together” – as he wrote – “leads us to conclude that it is necessary to decide which lady to serve exclusively – philosophy or the school” [ibidem]. This “dedication to school, with leisurely excursions into the field of philosophy” lasted for over 11 years from the date of writing this letter. Academic loneliness, a sense of unfulfillment, difficult contacts with Polish philosophers toughened him internally. He recalled this time not without satisfaction: I was alone [in Toruń], almost without books, because apart from my own I only had access to some old classics from the secondary school’s library. However, the intellectual loneliness wasn’t bad for me, I began to slowly consolidate internally, although the inability to exchange thoughts, the lack of decent academic discussion, did have a negative impact on me and my work7. Ingarden was heavily considering moving to Lviv. “I regard my longer stay in Toruń deadly for myself in intellectual terms – and everything in me shivers at the thought of staying here any longer”, he wrote to Twardowski [1/1/1924]. Twardowski responded by formulating a strong wish: “I would very much wish that you, my dearest Colleague, shake off the ‘woeful mood’ in which you wrote 7 Roman Ingarden, “Dzieje mojej ‘kariery uniwersyteckiej’,” comp. Ryszard Jadczak, Kwartalnik Filozoficzny 27, no. 2 (1999): 187. Roman Ingarden. Portrait of a Teacher your last letter. And I will be honestly happy when my dear Colleague says that this happened” [5/17/1925]. On March 4, 1925 Ingarden received the approval of his habilitation by the Ministry. Another positive fact that could only firm his intentions was receiving the diploma of the Ministry of Religious Beliefs and Public Enlightenment on March 31, 1925. The diploma entitled him to conduct classes in general sec­ondary schools and teacher seminars in two main subjects: introduction to phi­losophy and mathematics, and a one secondary subject, namely physics8. These positive facts contributed to his decision to leave for Lviv as soon as possible. He ultimately took this step at the end of August; however, he left his family in Toruń for over half a year due to the lack of housing in the new place. What image of a man and a teacher did Ingarden leave behind in Toruń? How was he remembered by the youth he taught? The issue is all the more interesting, since in his letters to Twardowski Ingarden presents a negative attitude towards the students, and the work of a teacher in general. So did he reveal the distance and coldness to the students in his job? If that were the case, the students would surely repay with negative evaluations with respect to his person. However, it would be too far-reaching a simplification, undermining Ingarden’s personal and moral culture. One of the high school students of that time, Maria Bojarska, noted in her memoir: Our secondary school had an extraordinary individual in its teaching group, a Eu­ropean intellect: a scholar famous nowadays, Professor Roman Ingarden, PhD. He taught mathematics in some classes, and in ours, before graduation, a subject freshly introduced into the program: introduction to philosophy. For the great, original mind of the young philosopher our clumsy efforts in a difficult, new field must have been a struggle. But we could see that professor had a distant, ironic attitude to the school and all its matters. We called him Mephisto, his slender figure, dark, narrow eyes, lush black hair and a beard extending the triangular face, supplemented by that “sphinx” smile, brought to mind this diabolical comparison9. 8 State Archives of Lviv Region, Unit 26, description 5. No. 768, “Personal files of Roman Ingarden”, document 49, as cited in: Ryszard Jadczak, “Toruński okres w ży­ciorysie naukowym Romana Ingardena,” Ruch Filozoficzny 51, no. 3/4 (1994): 224. 9 Maria Bojarska, “Profesorowie w oczach uczniów (Gimnazjum Toruńskie w latach Ingarden left Toruń, its youth, and secondary school with relief. As it turned out later, he had also left behind something else he was probably not aware of. Ingarden moved to Lviv, where he worked at the Hetman Stefan Żółkiewski 5th State Secondary School from September 1, 1925 to August 31, 1928, and then he worked at the Karol Szajnocha 2nd State Secondary School from Sep­tember 1, 1928 to December 12, 1933. After the approval of his habilitation, he combined the work of a secondary school teacher with the work of a university lecturer as a Privatdozent. This situation lasted until December 1933, when a professorial position at philosophy was vacated by Prof. Mścisław Wartenberg and he could completely resign from work in secondary education and devote himself to academic work. A day in the life of a teacher Teaching was Ingarden’s main source of income. He worked in public and private secondary schools, he also made additional money in private tutoring. The matter of time, its use as a result of the precise organization of compulsory and optional activities, and thus self-discipline were absolutely fundamental in this case. Therefore, one should ask: what was Ingarden’s typical day like? How much time did spend on his professional work, how much on academic work, how much did he devote to his own development, how much to family life and how much to relaxation? His eldest son, Roman Stanisław, left a description of his day in Lviv, but we can assume that it was fairly similar in Warsaw and Toruń. Ingarden had “a very fixed lifestyle. He got up at seven in the morning, at eight he went to school (then often with us, the children, though mostly earlier, because he had a longer way to go) and returned home from work at around 1 p.m.”. So, the teacher’s work was the time set between eight in the morning and one in the afternoon, which generally meant five to six hours of lessons. The next five to six hours of the late afternoon and evening were devoted to research: 1920-1922),” in Księga Pamiątkowa 400-lecia Toruńskiego Gimnazjum Akademickiego, vol. 3: XIX-XX wiek, ed. Zbigniew Zdrójkowski (Toruń: PWN, 1974), 37, as cited in: Ingarden, Życie filozofa, 94. Roman Ingarden. Portrait of a Teacher for Father worked a great deal, from five to ten or eleven every evening, with a small break for supper […] Before five, he had his afternoon tea and sat down in his office to work, mainly on the Remington typewriter he had bought in the 1920s. It was a small suitcase machine of great quality, as it withstood more than twenty years of very intense work10. It was undoubtedly an exhausting day plan, where accumulating fatigue could lead to exhaustion or even illness. That is why the issue of his resting time be­came so important. During the part of the day spent at home Ingarden had phases of work and rest. “After dinner he lay on the sofa, which was also in the office, and slept until four, possibly reading the aforementioned ‘childish books’ before falling asleep”. Roman Stanisław refers to these “childish books” a bit earlier, while describing his father’s office. It included three bookcases, one of them containing “a great collection of classics of philosophy in different languages set in chronological order”. The second bookcase contained literary fiction. “My father’s favorite books stood there, mainly from the era of Polish and foreign modernism, Wys-piański, Żeromski, Staff, Rilke and others, as well as some poetry and novels.” And finally, we can assume that there was a third bookcase, because in the second “there was no […] Sienkiewicz or books such as Robinson Crusoe, which we children read fiercely, and which Father also read to recall his youth, but also as childish literature”. Henryk Sienkiewicz – which is a curiosity – had been included by Ingarden in the category of childish literature. A different form of spending time at work was listening to the radio which the whole family participated in. In the thirties, when radio appeared, he liked listening to music on the radio while working, with headphones covering his ears, from a small crystal receiver. Mother would then often sit on the opposite side of the desk with some needlework and a second pair of headphones. 10Ingarden, Roman Stanisław. “O Romanie Ingardenie wspomnienia syna. Z okazji stulecia urodzin (1893-1970).” Ruch Filozoficzny 51, no. 3/4 (1994): 219. Intensive intellectual work could not be done during those times, as utmost concentration on a problem excluded the divisibility of attention. Therefore, it can be assumed that this was a form of rest, in which Maria, along with the children, took part: “When in the evening the ‘happy Lviv wave’ with Szczepek and Toniek was broadcast, he’d call over the children and we’d all listen, accom­panied by loud laughter, each holding half a headphone by our ears”. The main part of the day was the professional work of a secondary school teacher and for obvious reasons all other family and academic matters had to be adjusted to it. But academic work was also never neglected. The daily schedule allowed Ingarden to dedicate quite a large part of his day to it. But this descrip­tion did not include a university lecture Ingarden conducted in the evening as part of his duties as a private associate professor. This also required a lot of time and work to prepare for. And finally, he also gave private lessons that, even while they might not have required too much intensive preparation, chipped away at the valuable time he could have otherwise been able to devote to philosophy. To sum up, the eight-year stay in Lviv, with a short break for a trip to Germany, was marked by the hard work of a secondary school level public and private teacher and a lecturer at the Jan Kazimierz University. How great his fatigue must have been, how little time must he have had, since he was not even able to visit his “Dear Honorable Professor” on his birthday: I am currently so overwhelmed by work that even with the best intentions it is difficult for me to get away from the working day for that hour I would need to go to see you, Dear Honorable Professor. The first half of the week is especially very hard for me. Today, for example, I had 5 hours at school in the morning, and in the evening I have a lecture that I have to prepare for. It was the same yesterday. In addition, I still have to deal with the completion of the works that I recklessly promised in the spring of this year, without foreseeing that the con­ditions for my academic work might deteriorate even further. As a result, I still have of catching up to do in a number of works I’m engaged in. So that is also why I am writing this letter only today, although I had intended to do so for a few days now. As a result, my wishes will arrive late. Please do not hold this against me [in Lviv, 10/21/1931]. Roman Ingarden. Portrait of a Teacher “Dear Honorable Professor” did not hold Ingarden’s absence on his birthday against him. They continued their relationship on good terms, as evidenced by their correspondence. Both his free time and his activities became subordinate to these professional duties. But you cannot forget that Ingarden also had his additional interests, best expressed by the term hobby. From the early 1930s, he became a passionate photographer, leaving many family photos and undeveloped films in the family archive. In addition to photography, Ingarden “also liked games and social games for relaxation, mainly chess and cards – though those only as solitaire which he’d lay out often up until his last years”. A natural question arises here, where was the space for the family? Did he spend time with them at all? And if so, when and how? The following recollection of the eldest son, Roman Stanisław, about his father comes from Lviv: To us children, Father, although constantly overworked, was very approachable and cordial. Every Sunday, if the weather was nice, he’d go with us for long walks to Stryjski Park or further to the so-called Powystawowy Square and Persenkówka. This information is supplemented in the Wstęp do “Archiwaliów” ojca [Introduc­tion to the ‘Archives’ of my father] with an interesting description of Sunday meetings and discussions. And in this case, Ingarden’s eldest son recalls that after a whole week of work “father would rest only on Sunday, and before noon he’d usually take us, children, for a walk to Stryjski Park or to ‘Żelazna Woda’ [Park] in Lviv”11. For the children, it was “a great attraction and opportunity to have a talk with father, which was always interesting”. Sunday was, therefore, appar­ently, a special day for the children who, yearning for some time with their father, could finally be with him for a while. However, this was not time devoted solely to them. More people walked around the parks in Lviv on Sundays, including Ingarden’s university acquaintances or friends. Those accidental meetings then became occasions for philosophical disputes which the children participated in. As Roman Stanisław recalls, “We have often listened to philosophical discussions 11 Żelazna Woda is a park in Lviv founded in 1894 with an area of almost 20 ha. with people in the park, like Prof. [Leon] Chwistek, or Ms. [Halina] Słoniewska or [Anna] Jędrzejewska, sometimes with others, such as Dr. [Solomon] Igiel or [Leopold] Blaustein”12. One can imagine that children were bored to death, but since they were well-mannered, they waited politely for the end of the conversa­tion. Some of them listened to those unaware yet of the curiosity that was arising in them regarding the topics raised during these meetings13. Ingarden as an academic teacher The post-war Krakow period of Ingarden’s professional life can be divided into four parts, depending on the socio-political situation in the country. The first period covers the years 1945-1950, in which the fate of Lviv professors was being decided, and in which there was a short and not particularly deep phase of academic stabilization, which was manifested in the first publications and the first M.A. and PhD dissertation supervisions. All this effort was suddenly interrupted and destroyed by the political decision to put Ingarden on leave in 1950-1956. During this period, Ingarden was banned from teaching and partly also publishing. As a result of the political thaw in Poland after 1956, the process of normalizing the situation at universities began. For Ingarden, it was the first and, one could say, only period of didactic work, including the supervision of dissertations, which lasted from the beginning of 1957 until mid-1963. This period remains in the memories of his students, constituting an important – and 12 Quotations in this paragraph: Roman Stanisław Ingarden, “Wstęp do Archiwaliów ojca,” Kwartalnik Filozoficzny 27, no. 2 (1999): 172. Some readers may not be familiar with some of the names, hence the decision to write a few words about these individ­uals at this point. Salomon Igel (1889-1942), philosopher, psychologist, student of K. Twardowski, R.S. Ingarden misspells his name; Anna Jędrzejowska (1896-1986), librarian, in the years 1919-1946 an employee of the University Library in Lviv; H. Słoniewska (1897-1982), psychologist, educator, associated with K. Twardowski, advocated for the equal education of women. 13 Cf. Ingarden, “O Romanie Ingardenie wspomnienia syna,” 221, where the reader will find a description of a meeting of two philosophers, Ingarden and Chwistek, during which the son was “a silent witness to their fierce and long-lasting discussions which often lasted for many hours and ended in front of at our house on Jabłonowskich St.” Roman Ingarden. Portrait of a Teacher thus far omitted – contribution to Ingarden’s biography concerning the post-war period of his life and work. The last period was 1963-1970, the time of retirement from didactics and intensive academic work within the framework of the Polish Philosophical Society, the Krakow Aesthetics Section. A ‘foreign’ professor Ingarden stayed in Lviv until June 1944, after which he and his wife moved from to Pieskowa Skała near Krakow. As Anna Szczucka noted, “Prof. Roman Ingarden’s wife was a doctor at an orphanage, and the Professor himself spent the nights over a typewriter, and he tried to be useful during the day”14. After the liberation in January 1945, he waited for the further development of events. He was pulled out of this state of professional suspension in which he found himself in Pieskowa Skała by two letters he received at the end of January 1945 from the deans of the Jagiellonian University. One of them came from Prof. Zygmunt Zawirski, dean of the Faculty of Humanities, the second from Prof. Kazimierz Stołyhwa, dean of the Faculty of Natural Sciences. The letters opened new per­spectives for thinking and acting that would involve his family and academic and didactic life. Moved by deans’ information, he returned to Krakow on February 1, wanting to start teaching as soon as possible. Both letters – as he wrote in his memoir – invited me to come to Krakow and asking me to give lectures at the Jagiellonian University. I hadn’t taught for so many years already that the bait was a strong one. So many of my friends had died, it seemed to me that I had no right to shirk my job, whatever was going to happen next15 . The distinction in the quotation says something important about Ingarden’s emotions, about the sense of duty, and a strong willingness to finally take on 14 Anna Szczucka, “Warownia wołyńskich sierot,” Rzeczpospolita. Plus Minus, August 7, 1999, http://archiwum.rp.pl/artykul/237620-Warownia-wolynskich-sierot.html. 15 Roman Ingarden, “Sprawozdanie z działalności w Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim i wspomnienia z tego czasu,” comp. Jerzy Perzanowski, Kwartalnik Filozoficzny 27, no. 2 (1999): 217. the job. Hopes for an easier path through the formalities and a quick return to university classes proved to be in vain, because the situation was very complicated and eventually caused Ingarden a lot of grief. Ingarden reported to the University where he was registered as a ‘foreign professor’, which entitled him to receive a financial allowance of 1000 zlotys. He was not the only professor from abroad, as Lviv was already treated. “There were already a dozen or so professors from Lviv in Krakow, all unemployed, they were dawdling around Krakow, hoping that they could become useful somewhere.16” During a meeting at Prof. Stanisław Leon Kulczyński’s (February 17), a proposal was made to create a second university where lectures would be held. It is not known what it was really supposed to be, what the university would have been like and how this proposal would have been implemented. Certainly, the desire must have been really great, as one can see that it somewhat obscured the reality of politics prevailing in post-war Poland. The thought of returning to Lviv, which was put forward by prof. Władysław Szafer was equally unrealistic. Ingarden’s ‘dawdling’ around Krakow lasted for over a month, as the lectures began in the second half of March 1945, after almost six years of his break from the university. Ingarden then proposed a lecture on the history of ancient philosophy, while at the seminary he read Aristotle’s Poetics. As he wrote: I lectured without any rights. I told my students then that in this situation every­thing was ‘for love’, love of knowledge, of philosophy, whoever wanted to – could work with me. I couldn’t promise them that they would be able to take exams with me or anything like that. After all, I was a ‘foreign professor’, I did not belong to the Faculty Council, etc., but I did not waste any more time. I worked17 . The philosophy ‘for love’ is a return to the roots, though by necessity instead of choice, but it is also a strong sign of stability and order. Students easily accepted this principle regulating their education. A great desire to work was also there on their part, they wanted to catch up in their education and regain some of their lost youth, even though the careless years of university studies were no 16 Ibid., 219. 17 Ibid. Roman Ingarden. Portrait of a Teacher longer a possibility. Ingarden respected this desire and highly appreciated their devotion, writing: Youth was great at the time. Willing, understanding the value of university studies, very mentally mature, though barely able. I had a resonance in the classroom, after many years someone wanted to listen to philosophy again, someone cared about its issues18 . At that time, his didactic offer was not limited to ancient philosophy, he also covered aesthetics in his lectures. He wrote: “I was passionate about them; the lectures were to last until the end of July, I wanted to finish them, not to stop in the middle”19. Despite the determination to start work and the dedication to its execution, the situation was still highly unstable, and it was influenced by the plans of the central political authorities regarding Katowice and Wroclaw. In April 1945, Lviv scientists received an invitation to Katowice. Ingarden, as the dean of the Faculty of Humanities at the Jan Kazimierz University, went to Upper Silesia with three of his colleagues – Professors Kulczyński, Tadeusz Bigo and Stanisław Laskownicki. As he noted, “nothing came of it”, because the scholars were more interested in the university in Wroclaw. “Indeed, at the end of May, Wroclaw was conquered”, a team of professors and assistants left for it, “and thus the nucleus of the new university was formed. Krakow breathed a sigh of relief – the wave from Lviv was flowing away”20. I must mention a little-known fact coalescent to the city of Poznan. Ingarden’s old friend Stefan Błachowski, was trying to recruit him to the University of Poznan, where during the 1945/1946 academic year, he was a vice-president. In his letter from July 13th, 1945, he wrote: “The case of your employment in 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid., 220. 20 Ibid. Ingarden’s opinion that “at the end of May Wroclaw was conquered” is ambig­ uous. One can mistakenly understand that as it being conquered by the Soviet army, which would not be correct, as the city was captured on May 6. the Department of Philosophy is as follows: The Faculty Board of Humanity appointed you to become the department chair after Sobeski”. He also added that it seems like “there is a tendency for the Lviv team to stay together”. He understood Ingarden’s situation, but he was rushing him to make a decision: “You have to decide, because the Department wants to feature you as a mem-ber of the faculty”21. Probably a couple of factors helped Ingarden with the decision of abandoning the idea of moving to Poznan. It was mentioned by Błachowski that there was a tough housing situation in Poznan. In the end we know that Ingarden started informal classes in Krakow, which was his hometown. However, Ingarden’s situation was not yet stable, which resulted from the fact that he was a long-distance dean of a faculty in Lviv and was still under pressure from his colleagues to leave Krakow and move to Wrocław. He there­ fore renounced the dean’s function, which only gave him temporary peace. In December 1945, he received a summons from Wrocław to start classes at a university there that had already been operational. The proposal was tempting, the housing conditions were excellent, as he was offered a flat in a villa where he could occupy the first floor, while his son Roman Stanisław, who became an assistant lecturer in physics under Prof. Stanisław Loria would reside on the ground floor. Both Ingardens’ fate in Krakow and the future of philosophy at the Jagiellonian University was still unsure. “So, I went. I lectured there for a week, I was given a large Institute, I was promised a large library, they wanted me to commute to Wrocław, if I still wanted to lecture in Krakow.” Ingarden rejected the offer to work in two places, and at the same time he was not sure about Wrocław, although he still lectured in Krakow as a ‘foreign’ professor. In the end, however, he chose Krakow. After all, I felt at home here. I was born several hundred meters from the current flat, I have been to Krakow many times when my parents lived here – after 1912, I believed that it would be easier for me to adapt here than anywhere else, that is in Katowice, Wrocław and Poznań22 . 21 Krzysztof Ingarden's Family Archives, “Letter from Stefan Błachowski to Roman Ingarden, July 13, 1945.” 22 Ingarden, “Sprawozdanie”, 220. Roman Ingarden. Portrait of a Teacher A breakthrough came at that moment. Ingarden received a message from the rector of the Jagiellonian University Tadeusz Lehr-Spławiński that the Ministry approved his contract for a ‘contract professor’. He felt relief: “It’s done, I’ve signed the contract, I stayed in Krakow. Wroclaw was too foreign to me in the end, I did not want anyone to treat me as an ‘occupant’. In June [12, 1946], a nomination came for him as a professor of the Jagiellonian University signed by Bierut. “It was not such one” – he confessed – “I once dreamed of”23. In­garden took over the 2nd Chair of Philosophy, the 1st Chair was then headed by Prof. Władysław Heinrich. The period of stabilization – a prerequisite for academic work – finally began. In this case, however, meaning in this particular post-war period and these polit­ical conditions, it was an extremely difficult and fragile stabilization, influenced by housing, political and ideological issues. There were also personnel problems concerning lecturers of philosophy. In the first period of university work, from March 1945 to June 1950, professors worked in both departments: Heinrich and Stefan Szuman, who lectured as psychologists, then Fr. Konstanty Michal­ski and Zygmunt Zawirski, who lectured as philosophers. The last two died suddenly (1947 and 1948) and “the whole burden of philosophy fell onto my shoulders”, Ingarden wrote. For a short time Bolesław Gawecki worked at the Faculty, but he moved to Wroclaw in 194624. There was also Władysław Tatar­kiewicz, who lectured at the Jagiellonian University in the 1945/1946 academic year. He conducted classes in aesthetics for students of Polish philology. In 1945, he also began to commute to give lectures in Warsaw. His stay in Krakow lasted for 15 years. In 1949, he met with a fate similar to Ingarden’s, namely he was deprived of the right to lecture, and he was also prohibited from selling the third volume of the History of Philosophy25. Ingarden’s recollections also include lecturers, who belonged to the Faculty of Philosophy, but were not familiar with philosophy at all, which he spoke 23 Ibid., 221. 24 See: Jan Woleński, “Bolesław Józef Gawecki (1889-1984),” in Złota księga Wydziału Filozoficznego, eds. Justyna Miklaszewska, and Janusz Mizera (Krakow: Księgarnia Akademicka, 2000), 235. 25 Teresa and Władysław Tatarkiewiczowie, Wspomnienia (Warszawa: PWN, 1979), 84-5. about very regretfully. The first of them, the “praisers of the new order”, ap­peared already in the spring of 1946. It was Kazimierz Dobrowolski, a pre-war professor of history who became a sociologist after the war. “Before the war, he was very governmental, close to the ‘colonels’ government. After he was close to the new government.” Next ones who “began to steer in the same direction, if not joined the party immediately” were historian Kazimierz Piwarski, histo­rian Kazimierz Lepszy, “who was immediately oriented to the left”; Stanisław Skowron, “close to vitalism, but soon […] turned to Soviet biology”; educator Zygmunt Mysłakowski, “who, with all his sybaritism, immediately joined the party”. The historian Ludwik Piotrowicz, “persecuted until his death, though I could never figure out why” was one character that seemed to be different. Ingarden’s negative assessment of their life choices had been strengthened by a critical approach to their education. With regard to the first listed, he wrote “a philosophical illiterate, as 90% of the Krakow professors. (It is part of the etiquette here that when a philosophical conversation takes place, one is not to understand anything, with a smirk on their face and a knowing look)”26. Ingarden also had some reservations about the lecture halls. There were several of them in various places in the city: I lectured according to the old Polish regulations for all students of the Faculty of Humanities, and after Zawirski’s death also at the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences. I first lectured in the Copernicus Room, unpleasant and non-acoustic, then in the Room of the Zoology Department at St. Anna St. 6. I also lectured at the Faculty of Philosophy at Wolska St. 13, where I also had my seminar and proseminar meetings, as well as the meetings of the Philosophical Society27 . The Department of Philosophy, renamed in the next decade to the Institute of Philosophy, still occupied the first floor at ul. Wolska / Piłsudskiego (the second floor was occupied by the Institute of Psychology, and the third floor 26 Ingarden, “Sprawozdanie”, 222-3, for all quotations in this paragraph. 27 Ibid., 221. For political reasons the name of Wolska St. was changed in 1948 to Manifestu Lipcowego St., and in 1990 it returned to the old name from 1933, of J. Piłsudski St. Roman Ingarden. Portrait of a Teacher by the Institute of Pedagogy) in a much later recollection of Adam Zagajewski. You could only pass others by in the narrow, tight corridors. There was no place for benches or chairs, which is why the students would occupy the stone stairs: “a collective mood prevailed on the stairs of this philosophical and psychological building, individualities faded there”28. Professor ‘on leave’ Working conditions at the university deteriorated due to political reasons. In­garden kept away from ideological issues, let alone political ones, because they did not agree with reliable philosophical reasoning. “In 1945, when I took up lecturing at the Jagiellonian University, no one raised any objections to ‘idealistic’ – as it was called – philosophy; it also seemed that no one, at that time, lectured Marxism, unless they tried to do something like that in Warsaw.” However, in the following years “the atmosphere began to change more and more […] the situation of philosophy was slowly getting worse”. From the current perspective, it is difficult to understand, and even harder to imagine. However, it is impossible to deny the fact that was shocking to Ingarden, since denunciations on him were being sent to the Ministry. What was he reported for? The philosopher mentions two charges against him: “I allegedly demand ‘phenomenology’ from students in exams, I give a lot of failing grades when examining from the main principles of philosophical sciences”. Accusations of malice and lack of objectivity are difficult, if at all possible, to defend. But also at that time nobody really cared about their truthfulness. They were probably reported by ideologized students, but they certainly also came from the “Security Service spies” whose presence Ingarden was aware of. He even listed their names and wrote that they “fooled my assistant lecturers […] There was a whole array of spies among the students”. The matter of this slander certainly weighed on him, because he returned to it another time by presenting a list of exam grades that the students received from him. I am limiting myself to the exams at the Faculty of Humanities: 28 Adam Zagajewski, W cudzym pięknie (Krakow: a5, 1998), 43. very good good satisfactory unsatisfactory sum 101 155 109 41 406 … Percentage: 24.9 38.2 26,8 10 Reports claimed that over half of examinees fail their exams. The calculation was made based on the examiner’s notes”29. It is clear that the table below shows the normal spread of grades. But it is also clear that no calculations, no arguments at all, could help Ingarden, because no one expected them, nobody would be interested in them. Maria Gołaszewska, Ingarden’s student in this period, presents interesting and personal memories, shedding additional light on the events of that time. She wrote: Immediately after the end of the war, for a year or two it seemed that everything would return to normal, and research would remain research, as understood by European culture. Disappointment came quite quickly. Although Ingarden received a professorial position at the Jagiellonian University, public life in Poland was gradually being changed in accordance with Soviet models. It seemed though that something could still be saved. “The University is not the property of the Central Committee”, the Professor would say30 . The Professor was not the only one who was wrong. Everyone hoped that the University would survive, as an institution and an idea, as the last enclave of pure thought in the name of cultivating higher values. These hopes proved futile, and the Central Committee of the Polish United Workers’ Party gained control over both the University and Poland. The disappointment was bitter, because it was related to the withdrawals of rights to university work. 29 Ingarden, “Sprawozdanie”, 225, footnote. 30 Maria Gołaszewska, Roman Ingarden. Człowiek i dzieło (Krakow: Uniwersytet Ja­gielloński, 1993), 7-8. Roman Ingarden. Portrait of a Teacher From this period, which Gołaszewska calls “the beginning of the end”, comes another of her recollections and she describes it as “one of the Professor’s most painful experiences, which lay like a dark shadow on the entire university com­munity”. It’s about the compulsory participation of academic staff in the Labor Day parade: Ingarden went to the march to express his solidarity with the youth and his col­leagues. It was a shocking experience for us, the Professor’s team: together with everyone he waited in the scorching sun to start the march and then he walked with us, his head down31. The worst was still ahead of him and his students. In 1950, during a meeting of the Senate of the Jagiellonian University, an activist of the Union of Polish Youth asked the Rector: “I would like to learn from Your Magnificence, how long will we have to listen to this nonsense that Roman Ingarden is spouting?” That was no longer a denunciation, nor a plan for profound changes discussed in the silence of individual offices under the slogan “destroy the kulak of research”32. I view this question as a symbol of changes that had actually taken place and not ones that were just to come. Ingarden lectured until the end of June 1950. On November 23 of that year, he was put on paid leave, which in fact meant suspending him in his didactic duties33. An eminent philosopher, researcher, and excellent academic teacher became a victim of the 31 Ibid., 8. 32 Anna Zechenter, “Zniszczyć kułaka nauki. Uczeni i uczelnie w kuźni komunizmu,” Biuletyn Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej 11, no. 3 (March 2011): 48-52. 33 A similar decision, a complete ban on practicing didactics, affected: Dąmbska, Henryk Elzenberg, Janina Kotarbińska, Maria and Stanisław Ossowski, Janina Su­chorzewska and Tatarkiewicz. The didactic activities of K. Ajdukiewicz, T. Czeżowski, Maria Kokoszyńska-Lutmanowa and Tadeusz Kotarbiński were limited only to classes in logic. The purge did not only affect philosophers, but also other scientists, such as: Stanisław Pigoń, Juliusz Kleiner, Stefania Skwarczyńska (historians of literature), Władysław Konopczyński (historian), Jan S. Bystroń (ethnographer), Stanisław Gą­siorowski (archaeologist). party ideology of the time that violated the principles of moral, intellectual and scientific integrity. Ingarden did not succumb to pressure, which is why he lost his didactic work for several years. And, just how a few years earlier he was a foreign professor at his Alma Mater, he became its professor on leave. An opinion presented by the first secretary of the Fundamental Party Organization of the Polish United Workers’ Party at the Jagiellonian University, which I leave without commentary, contributed to it significantly34. Prof. Roman Ingarden. Born on February 5, 1893, father engineer, mother teacher, lecturer in the history of philosophy and logic. Definite idealist and an enemy of materialism. One of the most prominent rep­resentatives of the so-called Husserlism. In his lectures he completely leaves out Marxist philosophy, he only requires knowledge of philosophy until 1830. During exams he asks questions meant to guide towards issues of Marxist philosophy, but in order to criticize and try to ridicule them (He accuses materialistic philosophy of inconsistency, etc.). He speaks of Soviet science with undisguised utter irony. He also approaches all work related to the fight for the highest level of research with the same attitude. He gathers the most reactionary, clerical individuals of the University around him, and they are completely under his influence. Regarding his public appearances, his polemics at the First Convention of Circles of Polish Studies in Krakow, in November 1947, where he fought against Żółkiewski’s views35 are widely known. 34 Władysław Stróżewski, “Roman Ingarden (1893-1970),” in Złota księga Wydziału Filozoficznego, 255-6. This note is undated, but it can be assumed that it was written in the second half of 1950. 35 Stefan Żółkiewski was a high party official in the post-war period (he was the head of the Department of Education and Culture of the Central Committee of the Polish United Workers’ Party) who in 1948 prepared a proposal for the preparation of Marxist Roman Ingarden. Portrait of a Teacher To sum up: Prof. Ingarden Roman is a determined, conscious enemy who should be stripped of his professorial position. First Secretary of the Fundamental Party Organization of the Polish United Workers’ Party at the Jagiellonian University Kędziorek36 Bogdan The above opinion of the secretary was supplemented by a “Profile” prepared a few months later and treated as a confidential document37. academic staff in humanities, which were to replace the current scholars due to their ideological views, and tor the reform of teaching programs and higher education. This program was implemented in 1950. 36 It is worth noting that he same B. Kędziorek, who at that time was the head of the Department of Science at the Voivodeship Committee of the Polish United Workers’ Party in Krakow had a significant role in the purge of philosophers at the Jagiellonian University in 1963/1964. Due to the 600th anniversary of the Jagiellonian University, the removals of professors and assistant lecturers from the Chairs of the History of Philosophy and Logic were delayed by a year; these included: Izydora Dąmbska, Danuta Gierulanka, Janina Makota, Andrzej Półtawski, Jan Szewczyk. The first three belonged to the Chair of the History of Philosophy. 37 I am leaving out the second, in the chronological order, opinion drawn up on behalf of the Union of Polish Youth of the Jagiellonian University and signed by the chair­man of the said Union. This opinion does not introduce any significant information regarding the accusation of Ingarden of idealism and hostility towards materialism; it is basically a copy of the first opinion created by the secretary of the Fundamental Party Organization at the Jagiellonian University presented above in full. “Branch (…) In Krakow Krakow, July 30, 1951 CONFIDENTIAL Profile Personalia: Prof. Ingarden, PhD Roman, son of Roman Date and place of birth 2/5/1893, Krakow Education Univ. Lviv. Fac. of Philosophy, Studies in Göttingen, Vienna, Freiburg-Bad. Social background working intel. (father engineer) Party affiliation nonpartisan Position full prof. F. Humanities, Jagiellonian Univ., on leave by decision of the Min. Political facet Before the war he allegedly did not belong to any parties. During the occupation, he stayed in Lviv where he was a lecturer of philosophy in secret classes of the Uni­versity of Lviv until the beginning of 1944. Then he stayed in Krakow until the end of the occupation. After liberation, he no longer belonged to the party. According to the opinion of the people surrounding him at the university, Dr. Ingarden has a negative attitude towards the current reality. In his lectures he completely leaves out Marxist philosophy. He speaks of Soviet science with undisguised utter irony. He also approaches all the work related to the fight for the highest level of research with the same attitude. During exams he asks questions meant to guide towards issues of Marxist philosophy, but in order to criticize and try to ridicule them. During the exam he guides students to the issues of Marxist philosophy, but only to criticize and ridicule them. He gathers the most reactionary individuals of the University around him, and they are completely under his influence. Roman Ingarden. Portrait of a Teacher Moral facet Not much known with regard to private life. No criminal record. Attitude to professional work In the years 1918-33 he worked continuously as a teacher: in Lublin, in the Górski Secondary Shool in Warsaw, in the State Sec. Sch. in Toruń and Lviv. From 1933 to the outbreak of the war, he was a prof. of Univ. of J. Casimir in Lviv. After the reorganization of the University of Lviv and its renaming to Univ. of I. Franko, he was appointed professor of literary theory at the F. of Philosophy’s Ch. of Ger. Philosophy, where he lectured until 6/22/1941. Then he was a lecturer at the Tech­nical Vocational School in Lviv, until May 1944. From June 1944 to the end of the German occupation he stayed in Pieskowa Skala as a teacher at an orphanage. From February 1945, he was employed at the Faculty of Humanities of the Jagiello­nian Univ., initially as a contract professor, then as a full professor of philosophy until 1950. From the 1950/51 acad. year he is on paid leave and the Chair where he was a lecturer, was shut down on 1/1/1951. First Secretary Head of the Department of University Committee of Human Resources in the Polish United Workers’ Party of the Jagiellonian University Kościański Tadeusz Łopatka Zdzisław”38 38 Literal quotation, with one exception: the underlined part of the sentence is addi­tionally crossed out. An event of considerable influence in these circumstances was the 1st Congress of Polish Science held from June 29 to July 2, 1951 in Warsaw. It was then that Żanna Kormanowa presented a model of approach to the pre-war scholars, eagerly implemented by University Committees of the Polish United Workers’ Party in the following months and years. Another result of the debate was a resolution that stipulated that “learning in every field should be based on the philosophy of Marxism”, as well as decisions regarding broadly understood scientific institutions. The Polish Academy of Learning in Krakow and the Warsaw Scientific Society ended their long Both of the above opinions undoubtedly influenced Ingarden’s ‘leave’, depriv­ing him of work for the following years. These were not years lost in terms of research, but they were irretrievably lost in the didactic and supervisory aspects. The culmination of false allegations was Tadeusz Kroński’s opinion, a pseu­doscientific accusation expressed with regards to Ingarden’s most important philosophical work. The opinion concerned two volumes of Controversy over the Existence of the World published in 1947 and 1948 in Krakow. In 1952, Kroński published an absurd review concerning the Controversy entitled “The world in the frame of ontology”. Today it is difficult to understand such a distant and glaring departure from the essence of the issues considered by Ingarden. Therein Kroński expressed a number of opinions, including: “Ingarden is a writer completely deprived of political imagination […] Ingarden’s book is a brilliant example of the infertility, decay and bankruptcy of bourgeois philosophy”. And in another passage: “The Genus proximum of Ingarden’s Controversy does not pose any difficulty. It is an idealistic book and as such it turns its back on science and the proletarian camp”39. Understanding the meaning of the sentences, the implication, I read these words helplessly, failing to see the idealistic back-turning or the link between ontology and the proletariat in the Controversy over the Existence of the World. Gołaszewska commented on the review as follows: “This criticism with its accusa­tory aftertaste of an informant was especially depressing for the Professor – after all, Kroński used to attend his seminars and lectures in Lviv”40. Let us note, by the way, that Kroński did not spare Tatarkiewicz and his History of Philosophy41 either. and seminal activity soon after. See: Monika Komaniecka, “Kongresy Nauki Polskiej w PRL,” Forum Akademickie 24, no. 2 (2017): 62. 39 Tadeusz Kroński, “Świat w klamrach ontologii,” Myśl Filozoficzna 1 (1952): 318-31. 40 Both quotations: Gołaszewska, Roman Ingarden, 8. 41 His review read: The history of philosophy is, alongside philosophical views, one of the forms of ideology and equally serves the interests of specific classes... Tatarkiewicz chose and compiled facts in such a way that he crossed out the real meaning of the whole development of philosophy. In fact, this development has two periods: before Marx and after Marx […] Tatarkiewicz’s textbook is not only idealistic, but [also] Roman Ingarden. Portrait of a Teacher He accused both philosophers of disregarding Marxism, failing to recognize his crucial role in philosophy and science in general, or detaching philosophical views from the class context. One could say that Kroński is the equivalent of Herostrates in philosophy and deserves to be forgotten. There is, however, no full correspondence between the actions of these people; their falsifications prompted by ideological reasons deserve attention due to educational reasons42. In the years 1945-1950, Ingarden conducted classes for three categories of students: (1) lectures and “one or two seminars” “for students specializing in philosophy”; (2) lectures for all students of the Faculty of the Humanities; and after the death of Prof. Zawirski (3) lectures on the main principles of philosophy for students of the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences. He said in his memoirs that in the summer semester of 1945 he had the following classes each week: the history of ancient philosophy – 2 hours; aesthetics – 2 hours and seminar (workshops) based on readings from Aristotle’s Poetics. In the final years of the forties, Ingarden was helped by Jan Leszczyński, PhD, who conducted seminars for older students43. From December 1949, Ingarden also took care of the Chair of German Philology. The group of Ingarden’s students was large in the first period of his univer­sity activity, but not all of them managed to graduate. Until 1950, Ingarden supervised a number of students in their obtaining of their Master’s degree: Maria Naksianowicz-Gołaszewska, Jan Leszczyński, Andrzej Półtawski, Irena cosmopolitan […] A textbook in the history of philosophy, which is intended for students and wide audiences from the society, must […] present the development of philosophy as it was and is in reality: as the story of the birth, emergence and development of the materialistic worldview. See: Tadeusz Kroński, “O Historii filozofii W. Tatarkiewicza,” Myśl Filozoficzna 4 (1952): 249-72. 42 Inquisitive readers can find materials directed against Ajdukiewicz, Kotarbinski, Twardowski and other aforementioned scholars in Myśl Filozoficzna from the 1950s (see footnote 33). The authors of these materials include: Bronisław Baczko, Henryk Holland, Leszek Kołakowski, Ryszard Nowicki, Waldemar Krajewski, T.M. Jaroszyński and Adam Schaff himself. 43 To find more on remarkable figure of Leszczyński see: Józef Lipiec, “Jan Leszczyński (1905-1990),” in Złota księga Wydziału Filozoficznego, 259-65. Średzińska and Wanda Wojciechowska. The second group of students was not as lucky. After being forced to take a leave Ingarden was deprived of the oppor­tunity to supervise to the end the M.A. dissertations of the following: Janina Makota, Krystyna Wójcik, Zenomena Płużkówna, Zofia Żarnecka and Krystyna Danecka. They had three supervisors to choose from: Kazimierz Pasenkiewicz, PhD, prof. Szuman and Leszczyński, who had just acquired his PhD (1948). It is understandable, because “the period of activity was too short for the students starting only after the war to acquire a PhD”44. In the second period of Ingarden’s activity, the following students were awarded a master’s degree: Halina Poświa­towska, Ewa Sowa, Jan Szewczyk, Adam Węgrzecki and Irena Wolna. During this period, the PhDs were defended by: Michał Hempoliński, Janina Makota, Jan Pawlica, Andrzej Półtawski, Jerzy Świecimski and Józef Tischner. On the other hand, Ewa Sowa and Anita Szczepańska started their PhDs, defending them later under other supervisors. The definition of a person The official reason for putting Ingarden on leave was the reformatory activities of the university authorities at the time, backed by the party. The curriculum of philosophy changed and as a consequence Ingarden’s Chair was shut down. The new program included dialectical materialism, the history of philosophy and logic. As the party’s opinions show, Ingarden became troublesome because he was maladjusted and, consequently, dangerous. Juliusz Kleiner came along with an offer of help and submitted an application for the transfer of Ingarden to the Chair of Logic (12/5/1950). The application, however, was not accepted. Almost a year later, in a letter from October 29, 1951, the Ministry of Higher Education allowed Ingarden to cooperate with the Editorial Department of the Library of Classics of Philosophy at the PWN [Polish Scientific Publishers] in Warsaw45. This decision turned out to be important both for Ingarden himself 44 Ingarden, “Sprawozdanie,” 226. 45 The Library of Classics of Philosophy was created as part of the PWN [Polish Scientific Publishers], following the example of the earlier library of translations of the classics Roman Ingarden. Portrait of a Teacher and for Polish philosophy. At the Library he became the editor responsible for preparing translations of works from German philosophy, and he himself became a translator, among others of the main work of Immanuel Kant. There was one more ban that came with the forced leave, namely Ingarden could not publish his own philosophical views in writing and lecture, but he had the right to speak on the issues of the history of philosophy. By force of another letter from November 10, 1951, Ingarden was put on a forced paid academic leave without the right to teach. Finally, in November 1952, he was transferred by a top-down decision to the Institute of Philosophy of the University of Warsaw. The order was purely formal, so it was fictional, since Ingarden did not partici­pate in any didactic activities in Warsaw, although the loss of his job position in general and numerous prohibitions and difficulties were far from fiction. Being banned from university work became a troublesome obstacle for his research. Ingarden lost the opportunity to travel abroad, so he could not partic­ipate in conferences and European congresses46. The severity of the harassment eased up after 1956, although the difficulties in obtaining a passport were the norm throughout the entire period of socialism in Poland. However, until 1956, intra-national travel also posed many problems. For every planned trip, for example to Zakopane, Ingarden had to obtain the consent of the rector of the University of Warsaw. This mountain town was very popular among scientists due to being a known tourist and health resort, but also because the Polish Academy of Learning had its own rest house there which provided good conditions for ac- of philosophy of the Polish Academy of Learning, which was then liquidated. This is worth elaborating on. Adam Schaff considered himself to be the founder of the Library of Classics of Philosophy, and recalls this moment as follows: “I knew that I had to do something nice for my ‘elderly’ [the professors removed from the university, LS] […], besides, it was a shame to lose the potential of not fully encumbered creative forces. I thought and thought, and invented the Library of Classics of Philosophy”, in: Adam Schaff, Moje spotkania z nauką polską (Warszawa: Polska Oficyna Wydawnicza “BGW”, 1997), 58. For a full image of these „meetings” see: Piotr Hübner, “Kilka refleksji o rządzeniu nauką,” Przegląd Filozoficzny. Nowa Seria 7, no. 1 (1998): 185-92. 46 Ingarden’s strong involvement in international cooperation in the years 1945-50 is a testimony to the importance of foreign travels; in those years he participated in three Congresses, in Rome in 1946, in Brussels and Paris in 1947 and in Amsterdam in 1948. ademic work. Ingarden would go to Zakopane frequently, finding that the house of creative work possessed favorable conditions for his own academic research47. In the context of the drastic travel restrictions, Ingarden coined his own definition of a person, one surprising in philosophy, although understandable in the context of life in the Polish People’s Republic. We can find it in the state­ ments of several people, so it had to be known in the community. “A person,” according to him “consists in socialism of a body, a soul and a passport”48. This statement is currently treated as one spoken jokingly, however it shows the degree of public control by the state officials at the time. Undoubtedly, this last element of humanity of that time belonged to a person only occasionally, and moreover it was lacking most often when it was most desired or needed. Ingarden experienced this state of being ‘an incomplete man’ in situations where he was invited to conferences outside of Poland. These states of suspension, feverish correspondence aimed at the ultimate goal of obtaining a passport, and finally resignation can be found in his correspondence with Tatarkiewicz, who tried to help in such situations using his contacts in the ministry or the Polish Academy of Sciences. It would be interesting to see how many stages of the ‘passport situ­ ation’, following the example of the stages of grief, would psychologists manage to distinguish in relation to the Polish travel restrictions at the time. During the compulsory break Ingarden worked very intensely on his research, but it turns out he was just as active didactically. He would hold – as Gołaszew­ska describes – “academic meetings of his circle of students and friends, unique privatissima”. Their participants would meet in private apartments in order to discuss philosophical issues and present research results. “In one such semi-con­spiratorial discussion, the Professor presented his theory of causality, which he was working on at the time.” Gołaszewska writes about a “free”, but also about “semi-conspiratorial discussion” during these meetings. If you can accept that they were free, they certainly could not have possessed even half of the conspirational characteristic. So, if we call them ‘sets’, then with the necessary stipulation that they could not have been secret. The “Spies” of the Security Service, as Ingarden 47 Source for both paragraphs, see: Zofia Majewska, Książeczka o Ingardenie. Szkic bio­graficzny (Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, 1995), 71-2. 48 Gołaszewska, Roman Ingarden, 7. Roman Ingarden. Portrait of a Teacher called them, certainly had full insight and knowledge of the meetings, although not necessarily about the topics and problems raised during them. This state of forced leave ended in December 1956. Ingarden received an invitation to return to teaching at the Jagiellonian University49. In March of the following year, he was appointed professor at the Chair of Logic and began lecturing. Finally, from September of that year he became the head of the Chair of Philosophy at the Faculty of Philosophy and History. He was again in regu­lar contact with student youth, with the lively philosophical thought, with the type of work that was closest to his heart. He was sixty-four and had six years left until retirement. This period of his last years of didactic work was, however, not free from restrictions imposed by the regulations. One of them was aimed directly at students of philosophy. Ingarden’s students were generally people who grew up either during the war or under Stalinist political harassment. They already had a large baggage of life experiences. They were mature people, whose maturity had most often been accelerated, forced by the circumstances. As Gołaszewska recalls, “they weren’t students sensu stricto. They were brought up in the age of Stalinism and then got to know different beliefs seeping in from the West”50. Ingarden 49 Jerzy Perzanowski described this fact in a sublime, but accurate way: The resurrection of philosophy at the Jagiellonian University was particularly spectacu­ lar. As you can clearly see in hindsight, Prof. R. Ingarden together with Prof. I. Dąmb­ ska simply resumed the pre-war philosophical seminar from the Jan Kazimierz University in Lviv at the Faculty of Philosophy and History at the Jagiellonian University, transferring the great Lviv philosophical tradition to Krakow […] In the 6 years (1957-63) of uninterrupted teaching they laid the foundations for the edifice of the Krakow Philosophy which has remained active for over a dozen years now. It survived numerous storms and trials […] God’s honest truth, thanks to the effort initiated by the teachings of Ingarden and Dąmbska, the Krakow Academy has an excellent philosophy on a world-class level for the first time since the fifteenth century. Jerzy Perzanowski, “Bajki, bajdy i ziarno prawdy o współczesnej filozofii polskiej,” Portal Tezeusz, August 21, 2009, accessed March 20, 2018, https://portal.tezeusz.pl/2009/08/21/bajdy-bajki-i-ziarno-prawdy-o-wspolczesnej-filo­zofii-polskiej/. 50 All quotations without references preceded by a surname, come from the authors of the recollections contained in this book. was certainly aware of that. Perhaps this was the reason for his attitude of un­derstanding and concern for them, especially when he became the dean. His attitude then could even be mistakenly classified by some as excessive liberalism or weakness of character. This approach was, in fact, an expression of kindness, understanding and willingness to help. It resulted from his personality traits and the baggage of his own life experiences, under the conditions imposed by two wars and Stalinism. The master and his disciples What would be the image of Ingarden as a person emerging from the recollections of students who were associated with him during studies or assistant lecturing work at the Jagiellonian University? The image here is understood broadly, as it contains all the important aspects of a person. Their recollections in this vol­ume allow a multi-faceted image of Ingarden to be built, and thus as a human, teacher and scientist. The image of the person The accounts of Ingarden’s students paint an image of a person with specific ways of thinking about life and one engaged in the valuation of certain atti­tudes in it. It is created by them from a dual distance: their age during their studies and of the time passed since the events subject to recollection. In most cases, Ingarden’s students were both older and mature. This fact resulted from individual war histories and subsequent political turmoil. But it also stemmed from the regulations regarding studies at the time, because for most students, philosophy was their second field of study. Their first was usually one of various other directions in humanities or exact and technical sciences. The students of that time, and presently decorated scientists and creators, despite the distance are able to effortlessly call upon memories from 60 years ago. They carry those times it in their minds and hearts, they have kept their teacher and master in their grateful, though sometimes also critical, memories. Roman Ingarden. Portrait of a Teacher The motivations of students to study philosophy were most varied, from searching for answers to crucial life questions, through expanding humanistic knowledge, to a deep exploration of philosophy itself and its various disciplines. These reasons and ventures have not changed in present times. Ingarden’s image as a person shows his everyday relationship with students and colleagues, as well as his attitude to contemporary ideology, politics and social events. The attitudes he is credited with in the recollections make it relatively easy to deduce what moral values Ingarden chose to pursue in his life. Ingarden’s students unanimously state that during their studies they were aware that he was an exceptional man and an outstanding scholar. Can the two be separated at all? Is it possible to separate private life from professional life? The answers are clearly negative. Ewa Sowa says that “a man and a teacher are ultimately inseparable”. In this case, the man is also a husband who harmoniously reconciled these spheres. But his wife also understood him in the choices he made and helped him become fulfilled in them. She was a cordial caretaker towards the students-guests who appeared in their home as part of the privatissima. What was the subject of those meetings then? Unsurprisingly, the meetings concerned philosophy, even if they went beyond its strict framework. Gołaszewska mentions the group’s interest expanding to include forbidden, ‘underground’ literature: “Those who weren’t being published at all. Gombrowicz, Herbert, Mrożek” in Poland at that time, even though they were prominent representatives of its culture. The author adds that “Ingarden always cautioned us against telling anyone about it, spreading it around. No one could know that he was meeting with the youths!”. Nobody found this attitude odd back then, because it was known that underground literature was politically dangerous. Can on infer from this that Ingarden formed an opposi­tion youth group he was a leader of? Gołaszewska disperses these speculations: “Ingarden wasn't a leader of any group. He always had his own views. The views of a man, who understands more and strives for more”. Students describe Ingarden in many different aspects, such as character traits, his personal and pro­fessional attitude to them, and even his sense of humor. Jan Woleński recalls that Ingarden was a “cheerful man, calm, distanced” who “took colleagues and students seriously”. He was valued, respected and liked. There is a lack of anecdotes which contribute to the creation of a given person’s legend about him in these accounts. “As a matter of fact”, says Woleński, “there were no anecdotes about him, except for a few insignificant sentences”. Was it not a secret that Ingarden lacked that bit of quirkiness or even the madness of a scientist that would add flavor to his behavior and statements? And then was it not his intellect that was the superior strength of his personality? Janina Makota recalls some anecdotal situations, but these concern Ingarden’s didactics and will be mentioned in the next part. It is known that the meeting point between professional contacts and interpersonal relations often gives birth to situations that favor the creation of jokes and amusing stories. Would it then be appropriate to conclude that the students lacked distance and never went beyond Ingarden’s direct influence? The conversations included in the volume contained questions about Ing­arden’s political attitude in the context of the events of the 1950s and 1960s. The answers were consistent: Ingarden did not get involved in ideological and political issues. He expressed this in his actions when he devoted one hour of class, and thus the minimum required lecture time, to Marxist philosophy. But this is also evidenced in the documents collected by the Security Service, related to the surveillance operation code-named ‘Senate’, directed against academic employees of the Jagiellonian University51. Finally, this is confirmed by the foregoing recol­lections. Leopold Zgoda speaks of a conscious choice, which did not result from fear for himself or his family. “Since he believed that hungry people need bread, not philosophy.” There were more restrictions and needs, and one of the most distressing ones was the lack of freedom to move around Europe. Both the body and the passport document were appropriated by the political authorities, and yet the mind remained free. Ingarden consistently built his space of scientific free-dom, not yielding to the tensions of the moment, nor to the economic pressure. This attitude aroused curiosity, intrigued students, but no one ever even thought to relate it to any character weakness. Ingarden’s view regarding the social func­tion ascribed to philosophers by ideologized officers of science was equally clear. Stróżewski invokes his explicit words on the topic: “the philosopher’s social role: he sits in a café, sips coffee, thinking whatever he pleases”. 51 Monika Komaniecka, Pod obserwacją i na podsłuchu. Rzeczowe środki pracy operacyjnej aparatu bezpieczeństwa w województwie krakowskim w latach 1945-1990 (Krakow: Dante, 2014), 203-4. Roman Ingarden. Portrait of a Teacher The image of the teacher In the memories of his students Ingarden emerges as a man deeply involved in his didactic activities, as well as his research. “Ingarden was a man” – as Władysław Stróżewski describes –“who held the reliability and authenticity of philosophical work in the highest regard”. This is evident in his writings, where “he goes as far in depth as possible”, so a systematic and thorough analysis is the research norm. This rules out coincidence, “nothing is ever left aside,” but there also is no way it could become subordinate to the key issue. In his inquiries, there has always been a striving to reach the “very root of each problem” and the “final conclusions”. Such an attitude means – not only in the opinion of Stróżewski – scientific integrity and reliability. Despite his unquestionable authority, Ingarden had a partnership approach to his students in this particular Socratic sense which means helping students develop on their own. It should be understood that in this case the idea of part­nership could not be realized in its entirety; it would not be possible then. The difference in knowledge, in the ability to acquire it, and thus conduct research was obviously large, but it did not prevent him from listening carefully to each student’s contribution, instead it was a hallmark of Ingarden’s didactic attitude. He implemented it in a natural and unforced way. This is also being an author­ity, being someone who – as put by Zgoda – in the spheres of education and upbringing is not one who orders, but someone who helps draw out. Draw out what? Well, that someone helps draw out understanding from within oneself, they help follow knowledge. This is that Socratic element helpful in extracting knowledge, in dealing with science, in following a certain way of life, in the ability to choose certain values. Therefore, Zgoda’s conclusion that “to draw out something dormant in a person […] is cooperation, co-thinking, and co-partnership” does not seem exaggerated. It is clear that none of the students and assistant lecturers had any doubts that Ingarden was able to discuss the problem in more detail and ana­lyze it even more deeply. That was also the source of Ingarden’s authority, not that he was the one in the lecturer’s seat. It was not institutional authority, but personality and scientific authority that made him an exceptional character of authority both in the lecture hall and outside of it, for example during a walk or in a meeting at home. These new situations could “reveal a certain value, a cer­tain quality, or a certain life phenomenon. I have also experienced,” concludes Zgoda, “something of the sort with Professor Ingarden”. He allowed hesitation, mental returns to the starting point, a long reflection in the search for a solution, which is a testimony to his – in this case scientific – tolerance. Understanding these attitudes in no way meant disrespect and indifference. “With him there was this sort of a heartfelt understanding that it could be different, wandering and erring included,” adds Zgoda52. The same features mark Ingarden’s didactic work, focused on the academic de­velopment of his students. He could see the positive sides of the student’s work and fairly evaluate a dissertation submitted to him against contrary external assessments. Jan Woleński brings up a story of a doctoral thesis that Ingarden was a supervisor of. The dissertation received a negative external review, but from someone who considered themselves a Marxist: “It’s difficult, there are very good dissertations, and there are also barely satisfactory but still positive ones. And that’s what this one is”. The doctoral student was saved from a failing grade and his work was not rejected, which shows that Ingarden was nuanced in his assessments, that he was forgiving and able to resist external pressure which had its political context. His former students agree that Ingarden was not an authoritarian teacher, he did not impose his views on others, he did not consider them to be the only right ones, as evidenced by the seminar discussions he would have which Jan Szewczyk and Józef Tischner. Ingarden showed a great understanding of the individualized attitudes, needs and abilities of his students. This was evident in his classes – as Jerzy Aleksandrowicz recalls – in which everyone was encouraged to think independently, participate in the discussion and state their own opinions. Ingarden’s questions served this exact purpose, and the answers were followed by help with understanding its meaning, where interpretation of Ingarden himself was often necessary. 52 This way of teaching was later deemed old and ineffective. In 1950 Adam Rapacki, the first Minister of Higher Education and Science, announced the following objectives for his actions: “The common task for all of us is to change this old, unplanned and undisciplined craftsman’s style of work of a capitalist university and replace it with a modern socialist system of personnel production”; as cited in: Zechenter, “Zniszczyć kułaka nauki,” 51. Roman Ingarden. Portrait of a Teacher Ingarden was not overprotective, he did not lead the student by the hand, he gave a lot of freedom in the final – be it a master’s or doctoral – dissertation, knowing that intelligent wandering and is an important step in development. Consultation as such did not take place during the writing process, it only began in the final phase of work, when the student came to the supervisor after finishing a larger part, or even with the entire dissertation. The rule was a student – as Gołaszewska says – “should independently write a thesis on a new subject […] With Ingarden one had to be able to sail by themselves”. This independence was evident at every stage of a student’s, and later an assistant or adjunct lecturer, work and development. Ingarden’s – as Gołaszewska adds – “very existence helped. It meant a lot, him being there, being active, sometimes saying something crucial – one had to make the most of it”. The lack of overprotectiveness towards students was also visible in the fact that he did not pick favorites. Obviously, he noticed differences in abilities and he’d reward them, for example by sending a student on a scholarship, as it happened in the case of Piotr Waszczenko. He also valued the work and involvement of others, such as Szewczyk or Jerzy Perzanowski. As Andrzej Kowal recalls, “I never noticed him distinguishing someone for reasons other than the those related to their capabilities”. Ingarden’s lectures or seminars should cannot be omitted in the discussion of his didactic, but also scientific work, as it used to be the norm for a scholar to share their thoughts and current research results with students, subjecting them to their first verification. Lectures in which he, completely dedicated to the issue at hand, discussed the problem from many different points of view, thus reaching its essence were well-known and appreciated. The lectures were very well prepared, conducted in a lively, polemical way, often supplemented – as Lipiec recalls – with digressions and trivia. They won him recognition and dedicated listeners. Ingarden did not shy away from personal digressions during his speeches, as, for example, he’d refer to journeys by car with his son Janusz, who was the driver. Ingarden himself did not have a driving license and – as his grandson Andrzej claims – he did not have the talent to drive a car. All these recollections prove that it would be difficult to suspect Ingarden of a heavy, academic style of speaking combined with, for example, a reading of a scripted lecture. He did not force anyone to pay attention, instead he naturally gained students’ interest, especially with the substantive content of his lectures. According to Makota, it was never barren speculation that Ingarden often warned his students against. An integral feature of his lectures was the constant con­version to reality. Her memories contain another characteristic of his classes, which she calls ‘appeal’: “Ingarden had a nice, masculine timbre of voice, and his speeches were characterized by a distinctive sentence melody”. He stimulated the imagination of his listeners with expressive and natural language, summoning clear images of the aspects of the subject under discussion. “The master vividly evoked the presented fragment or aspect of reality in his and our imagination.” He was no stranger to irony either. As Lipiec mentions, he’d often say: “I don’t understand much of this' (appearing where he understood the problem better than anyone else)”. Ingarden stood out among other scholars at the Faculty of Philosophy of the Jagiellonian University. Półtawski talks directly about Ingarden’s charisma and the way it attracted students. He emphasizes, however, that he was above all a philosopher: “Not all philosophy teachers are philosophers, and he was un­doubtedly a philosopher and taught philosophizing”. Lecturers at the Jagiellonian University at the time included Stefan Świeżawski and Tatarkiewicz, according to Półtawski “a great popularizer […] [who] was able to make an interesting lecture on the most boring topic”. And yet, Ingarden was the most interesting one. There were several reasons for that, and one of the most important – as noted by Sowa – was the approach to students that led to the “transformation of people”. This was not typical academic teaching, but something elusive, deeply penetrating not only one’s consciousness, but the very structure of a human being. It took place as a result of communing with the vivid thought of the philosopher and the issues they researched presented in a lecture or a seminar. Ingarden did not pull anyone along, nor did he push others. He indicated the way with his dedication, “he’d think out loud and ‘live’ in front of [his students]”. He pointed in the right direction through his intellectual activity, showed them independent thinking, “in a manner appropriate to phenomenological investigations, in the course of lecture he was discovering, showing, describing, building, creating what could later be read in his books before our eyes”53. 53 Leopold Zgoda, “Trud istnienia – wspomnienie o profesorze Jerzym Perzanowskim (1943-2009),” Argument: Biannual Philisophical Journal 1, no. 1 (2011): 170. Roman Ingarden. Portrait of a Teacher Such a non-academic “transformation of humans” is Socrates’ approach to his disciples which Plato described. Leonard Nelson, whom Ingarden knew his time in Goettingen, wrote that “The Socratic method, then, is the art of teaching not philosophy but philosophizing, the art not of teaching not about philosophers but of making philosophers of the students”54. This is precisely what Ingarden did in the spirit of the maieutic method, meeting several of its preconditions. And so, he “thought live” in front of his students, which in the listeners evoked personal experiences related to the search for truth. This was the purpose of references to specific experiences, revealing their structure and meanings. Moreover, as interloc­utors attest to in their interviews, he was characterized by partner-like openness to his students’ statements, even when they were unclear. This was because he had special skills: that of insight into unclear senses of judgments formulated by participants of his seminars, and an ability to see a hidden value within them. In this joint effort of philosophizing, Ingarden and his disciples attained an in-depth understanding of problems. Plato described this way of acquisition of knowledge: „after long-continued intercourse between teacher and pupil, in joint pursuit of the subject, suddenly. Like light flashing forth when a fire is kindled, it is born in the soul and straightaway nourishes itself”55. Ingarden’s philosophizing “in the face of his students” constituted the kindling of the light within their souls; it constituted, in fact, transforming them into philosophers. On the other hand, it is known that Ingarden taught philosophy by philosophizing not only in an academic sense, touching them to their core and waking that which was dormant within them. The words of Ingarden himself, invoked by Sowa as a recollection, resound with this spirit: “someone saying that he was teaching them would have offended him! Because everyone learns alone! Another person can only help them”. Despite his aforementioned charisma, despite his scientific abilities, and, finally, despite prowess in his academic classes, Ingarden did not have too many students who became continuators of his philosophy. There were several rea­sons for this: the delayed process of obtaining a professorial position at the Jan Kazimierz University, the break in academic activity caused by the war, and the six-year ban on teaching at the Jagiellonian University in the 1950s. These inter­ 54 Leonard Nelson, O sztuce filozofowania, eds. and trans. Tadeusz Kononowicz, and Piotr Waszczenko (Krakow: Wydawnictwo Baran i Suszczyński, 1994), 173. 55 Platon, Listy, trans. Maria Maykowska (Warszawa: PWN, 1987), 50. ruptions violated the continuity of the teaching process and distracted students, only a few of whom returned after several years to continue their studies. Thus, the group of masters and doctors who earned their degrees under Ingarden’s supervision was not big, and the group of continuators of his phenomenologi­cal thought was in fact few, although it was a group that became prominent in Polish philosophy after their Master’s passing. He was not given the opportunity to go through the normal path of building an academic career that would allow him to gather gifted students and supervise in achieving successive academic degrees. But there might have been an additional factor which contributed to that outcome. Woleński states “I think that Ingarden very much regretted the fact that he didn’t have many students, as opposed to, for example, Ajdukiewicz or Kotarbiński. However, in my personal opinion, Ingarden didn’t have a talent for teaching”. Ingarden valued independent thought, he respected the effort that led to it. He always wanted a student to think for themselves, even if it meant prolonged adolescence and a drawn-out path to the solution of a problem. This is con­firmed by the beautiful memory of Sowa who struggled with a certain issue in her master’s thesis. It is worth quoting a longer passage here: I went to talk to the Professor. The Professor’s room had a desk behind which he’d usually sit while talking, and there was an armchair next to the desk. Whenever the conversation was going to quickly be over with, the Professor sat at the desk, and when he’d decide on a longer one, he’d sit in the armchair. And when I said, ‘Professor, I got it! This has to be relativized to the context!’, he happily confirmed and moved to the armchair, and I told him everything in order. And he was happy as a child! He was almost literally jumping for joy in that chair of his! Well, now show me another teacher like that […]. Ingarden did not have the habit of praising his students, at least he never did it explicitly. Lack of criticism was already a form of recognition and praise. An im­portant feature of his didactic approach to students was the acceptance of a variety of statements, of ideas put forward by the students during classes. Ingarden – as Lipiec recalls – “never rejected anyone, he was never sarcastic, he didn’t mock us, even for our preposterous ideas.” This could be seen very clearly at the meetings Roman Ingarden. Portrait of a Teacher of the Philosophical Society, where Ingarden gave his weekly lectures after retiring from the university. Even the most ridiculous questions asked by his listeners and their most nonsensical statements were taken seriously by Ingarden, he’d find hidden meanings in them and develop them according to his own knowledge. With one exception, mentioned by Woleński. According to him, this attitude of acceptance concerned statements in the spirit of phenomenology, while he would react harshly to non-phenomenenological responses, as “to such various, ‘logistic’ as he called them, interjections”. This attitude of tolerance probably arose from the fact that Ingarden was an open person; he was convinced, as Woleński recounts, “that one can always learn something, and he would like to learn something from every read, even by a student”. Apart from didactic tolerance and scientific openness, Ingarden was also “socially […] extremely accessible” – recalls Woleński, who lived in the same neighborhood as his professor. The distance between the former’s flat on Sobieski St. and the latter’s apartment on Biskupi Square was, in fact, just several hundred meters. This meant that – as Woleński details – “I met him quite often and sometimes accompanied him in his walks”, thus undermining the “myth that Ingarden was intimidating. But it’s an exaggeration”. The various features of the teacher’s attitude towards his students did not translate to his attitude to his own research. This seems understandable. Ingarden shaped his mind under the influence of German philosophers, Husserl, Adolf Reinach, mathematicians: David Hilbert, Edmund Landau and psychologists: Georg Elias Müller. This is an important factor in his subsequent academic research characterized by precision, consistency, seriousness and commitment to philosophical work. “Philosophy for him – Lipiec says – was philosophical creation”. All his students emphasize a significant characteristic of his academic work, namely, he was always concerned with philosophical questions and prob­lems first, and only then the philosophers who wrote about them. “Hence his works bear, above all, the burden of independent thought.” References to other philosophers were mainly polemical, rarely accepting. All of his students who deal with philosophy in their own work, without exception, emphasize the fact that Ingarden was a Master for them. They owe him everything that is important in philosophy and what is necessary for prac­ticing it. In defining him in this role, they used very varied expressions, for example that Ingarden was a source of “inspiration to a philosopher” (Lipiec), that one could sense his greatness (Stróżewski), that he was undoubtedly a mas­ter (Szymańska), that “he considered himself a depositary of the philosophical truth”(Woleński), that he “played a very important role in my life” (Kowal), that, finally “I owe [him] almost everything I know about philosophy”(Makota). I think that, keeping that in mind, I will be forgiven for a generalization that all those who spoke in this book are consistent in one thing: they do not regret the decision to go into philosophical studies. This is expressed by them both directly and indirectly; it shines through in their stories of how extraordinary they thought their meeting Ingarden was, of how they would keep studying under him even when the final dissertation, master or doctoral, never came to be defended. Rank versus ranking The rank and significance of a researcher can be expressed in two ways: either their own scientific achievements or the achievements of their students. In terms of one’s own accomplishments, the many decades during which Ingarden’s philosophical thought has been treated with the highest academic interest and seriousness, speak volumes in his favor. It was not because of ideological or eco­nomic reasons, but because of the academic significance of his thought that he influenced the research of philosophers, theoreticians of literature, and Polish humanists in general. In the seventies and eighties, this dominated in some academic centers in the country, most of all in Krakow. Its rank is also signified by translations of Ingarden’s works into foreign languages, although these came rather late and concerned only some of his works, which led to a delay in the impact of Ingarden’s achievements. The rank and significance of a teacher can also be determined in two ways: through the social and through the cultural achievements of his students. This has to do with the shaping of life and ethical attitudes, namely those that have translated into the choices made / abandoned or values selected / rejected, and thus everything that illustrates the civic attitude of an individual and the values guiding them within their personal culture. These attitudes and this way of evaluation are less prominent today, even though they used to be considered Roman Ingarden. Portrait of a Teacher of great significance an thus consciously shaped. In all these areas of forging and valuing the professional attitudes and life attitudes, Ingarden – in the as­sessment of his students – would deserve the highest place in the ranking. It can be assumed that one of the most important elements of his attitude was to give an individual example in many areas, for example in work ethic, in vivid, visualizing phenomenological analyses, in attentive listening to every voice, in­cluding students, in order to draw out the unnoticed sense in their statements and reveal its value. Zgoda brings up a rule of Ingarden’s didactic activity, which was to teach reliability, caution and responsibility for the formulated judgement. In Ingarden’s case, the separation of the scientific and didactic aspects of his person would be an artificial procedure. His students, aware of the deep unity of his roles of teacher and researcher, have become the best testimony to his greatness. That involves both a direct continuation of certain ideas from Ing­arden’s philosophy, and their indirect continuation, resulting from inspiration by the scholar’s ethical attitude or by his methodological approach. The people associated with Ingarden who give their accounts in this book all talk about his significance in their own achievements. Most of those will be in the domain of philosophy, although some declarations involve disciplines of science only related to it, if not by methodology, then by the moral attitude of a scientist or a creator. One also cannot forget to mention one more thread expressing a community approach to philosophy. Of course, we cannot talk about a fully identical way of thinking here, but we can certainly talk about the similar nature of the search. The selection of the subject of research and the research methods used differ in most cases. However, Ingarden’s disciples together take on a large portion of possible philosophical explorations, while complementing each other. Allan Bloom saw the importance of community philosophizing when he wrote: “Think together. It requires much thought to learn that this thinking might be what it is all for. That’s where we are beginning to fail. But it is right under our noses, improbable but always present”56. 56 Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987), 381. This community thinking was interrupted by Ingarden’s compulsory leave, which disturbed the natural learning process which would otherwise lead to the gathering of disciples around him, thus creating a ‘school’ around this outstanding scientist. The creation of a master’s school is the first element of generational exchange, which – importantly – is a natural way to continue research based on the recognition of the importance of certain values. In this case, it took at least a decade until a group of researchers started emerging around Ingarden, one which today, only in hindsight of more than half a century, we can call Ingarden’s school or the Krakow school of phenomenology. This period also brought irre­trievable cultural losses, because there were not enough of those willing to defend academic values and, more broadly, humanistic values. The values preferred at that time and proclaimed from political pulpits, “shone with light reflected in a puddle”57, since the postulates of ideology replaced the postulates of conscience. And that – as Zgoda expressed in his last conversation with Perzanowski – how to “be a good man” is what Ingarden, Dąmbska, and their teachers taught. “By teaching practicing philosophy with a word, but also with their own attitude and example, they taught the difficult art of living a good life.58” This study of the most difficult field of art of being a good man was, however made easier for these students, because they were bestowed with “the grace of the opportunity to closely commune with truly great people, one that leaves its mark on those who experience it for the rest of their lives”59. The recollections of Ingarden’s pupils are – as Andrzej Wroński summed it up on another occasion – a testimony to the study of true philosophy, at a real university, with real professors60. One of those was Ingarden, who along with Dąmbska and Daniela Gromska, as well as the younger assistant lecturers, made the Philosophical Seminar of the Jagiellonian University – as Perzanowski be­ 57 Władysław Stróżewski, O wielkości. Szkice z filozofii człowieka (Krakow: Znak, 2002), 175. 58 Zgoda, “Trud istnienia.” 59 Perzanowski, “Bajdy, bajki.” 60 Andrzej Wroński, “Wspomnienie,” in Izydora Dąmbska 1904-1983. Materiały z sympozjum “Non est necesse vivere, necesse est philosophari”, Kraków, 18-19 grudnia 1998 r., ed. Jerzy Perzanowski (Krakow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 2001), 123-4. Roman Ingarden. Portrait of a Teacher lieves – into a ‘reincarnation’ of the Lviv philosophical seminar61. Aware of who the Master of those seminar meetings was and the didactic and academic results he had obtained, it is clear that it is a comparison at the highest level and the highest measure of evaluation. There can only be one conclusion: we are dealing with greatness. How can we, how should we understand it? It is not about its gradation, that is, the indication of its measure in the mathematical sense, nor the adjective descriptors, nor the prefixes used in colloquial language, but about capturing its essence. Stróżewski distinguished three understandings of the notion of greatness: mathematical, metaphysical and axiological, which correspond respectively to number, being and value.62 Let us skip the first two meanings to consider the last one. If greatness is to refer to Ingarden in this third way of understanding, the concept of value should be considered in this personal relation. Let us add that it cannot be attributed to a man potentially, it has to be realized, and thus become a fact. Its realizations are most evident in broadly understood 61 Jerzy Perzanowski, “Garść wspomnień o Wielkim Filozofie,” in Od teorii literatury do ontologii świata. Materiały konferencji z okazji LXX rocznicy powstania Das Lit­erarische Kunstwerk “Znaczenie – Modalność – Wartość” zorganizowanej w Toruniu w dn. 17-18 kwietnia 1999 r. przez Romana Stanisława Ingardena, Jerzego Perzanows­kiego, Andrzeja Stoffa, eds. Jerzy Perzanowski, and Andrzej Pietruszczak (Toruń: Wy­dawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, 2003), 357. Perzanowski was probably as the only one to give a full description of Ingarden’s appearance, thus also revealing some of his inner qualities: “His figure was dignified. Senatorial. Average in height. Stately in posture. Moderate in weight for his age. His face stood out. Brisk. Usually smiling. Vivid and kind. Wide, round, harmonious. A high forehead. Gray, thin hair. Bushy eyebrows”. Ibid., 359. Some similarities can be found to his image contained in the memoir of Adam Zagajewski: Roman Ingarden was the god of philosophers. When I started studying he was, unfortunately, already retired, but he’d still drop by the Institute like an old nobleman who is no longer running a farm but is still interested in the yields of his property leased to the younger generation […] He was rather short and had a pretty head of an old gentleman. See: Zagajewski, W cudzym pięknie, 42. 62 Stróżewski, O wielkości, 175. creation, and thus scientific and artistic work. It is an activity directed at an object. Can greatness also be an expression of action directed at a subject, on another person? Of course, but under one condition. A person subjected to the action cannot be objectified as a result of it, meaning it cannot be put under any limiting pressure of the actor. The activities marked as great are focused on the development of the other person, and thus both unraveling their capabilities and abilities, and the literally understood help in their creative implementation. The aim is, therefore, to work towards the unveiling of the authentic personality of the subject, who in their action will use their own creative power leading to the creation of an original work. Ingarden the teacher falls into the category of such understood greatness. The voices of his disciples testify to it and are direct proof in the form of memory expressed in individual opinions. One cannot ignore this argument, and even if it might bear an element of subjectivism, it would be difficult to assume that all those voices are but an expression of an emotional approach to memories related to, for example, one’s own youth. But you can also call on the objective argument – of the academic achievements of the disciples. In this case we refer to the concept of the original implementation of their creative powers, in the revealing of which Ingarden had a great, decisive impact. And yet he was not the only teacher with such highly valued virtues of spirit and mind. There are other figures from his circle who also deserve to be recognized for their greatness, such as Dąmbska, Gierulanka or Daniela Gromska63. Each of these people shone with their own academic light, even if not of equal brightness as Ingarden’s philosophical light. 63 See: Perzanowski, Izydora Dąmbska 1904-1983; Jerzy Perzanowski, ed., Rozum – serce – smak. Pamięci profesor Izydory Dąmbskiej (1904-1983) (Krakow: Wyższa Szkoła Filo­zoficzno-Pedagogiczna “Ignatianum”, and WAM, 2009); Adam Węgrzecki, “Szkic do biografii naukowej Danuty Gierulanki,” Kwartalnik Filozoficzny 23, no. 2 (1995): 5-21. Roman Ingarden. Portrait of a Teacher Bibliography • Bloom, Allan. The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987. • Bojarska, Maria. “Profesorowie w oczach uczniów (Gimnazjum Toruńskie w latach1920-1922).” In Księga Pamiątkowa 400-lecia Toruńskiego Gimnazjum Akademickiego, vol. 3: XIX-XX wiek, edited by Zbigniew Zdrójkowski. Toruń: PWN, 1974. • The Digital Archive of Roman Ingarden. “Letter to Kazimierz Twardowski written 19.05.1919.” Accessed March 20, 2018. http://ingarden.archive.uj.edu. pl/en/archiwum/letter-to-kazimierz-twardowski-written-19-05-1919/. • Gołaszewska, Maria. Roman Ingarden. Człowiek i dzieło. Roman Ingarden. The Man and His Work. Krakow: Uniwersytet Jagielloński, 1993. • Hübner, Piotr. “Kilka refleksji o rządzeniu nauką.” Przegląd Filozoficzny. Nowa Seria 7, no. 1 (1998). • Ingarden, Roman. “Dzieje mojej ‘kariery uniwersyteckiej’,” comp. Ryszard Jadczak. Kwartalnik Filozoficzny 27, no. 2 (1999). • Ingarden, Roman. “Sprawozdanie z działalności w Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim i wspomnienia z tego czasu,” comp. Jerzy Perzanowski, Kwartalnik Filozoficzny 27, no. 2 (1999). • Ingarden, Roman Stanisław. “O Romanie Ingardenie wspomnienia syna. Z oka­zji stulecia urodzin (1893-1970).” Ruch Filozoficzny 51, no. 3/4 (1994). • Ingarden, Roman Stanisław. Roman Witold Ingarden. Życie filozofa w okresie toruńskim (1921-1926). Toruń: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Ko­pernika, 2000. • Ingarden, Roman Stanisław. “Wstęp do Archiwaliów ojca,” Kwartalnik Filo­zoficzny 27, no. 2 (1999). • Jadczak, Ryszard. “Toruński okres w życiorysie naukowym Romana Ingardena.” Ruch Filozoficzny 51, no. 3/4 (1994). • Komaniecka, Monika. “Kongresy Nauki Polskiej w PRL.” Forum Akademickie 24, no. 2 (2017). • Komaniecka, Monika. Pod obserwacją i na podsłuchu. Rzeczowe środki pracy ope­racyjnej aparatu bezpieczeństwa w województwie krakowskim w latach 1945-1990. Krakow: Dante, 2014. • Kroński, Tadeusz. “O Historii filozofii W. Tatarkiewicza.” Myśl Filozoficzna 4 (1952). • Kroński, Tadeusz. “Świat w klamrach ontologii.” Myśl Filozoficzna 1 (1952). • Krzysztof Ingarden’s Family Archives. “Letter from Stefan Błachowski to Ro­man Ingarden, July 13, 1945.” • Kuliniak, Radosław, and Dorota Leszczyna, Mariusz Pandura, comp. Kore­spondencja Romana Witolda Ingardena z Kazimierzem Twardowskim. Kęty: Wydawnictwo Marek Derewiecki, 2016. • Lipiec, J. “Jan Leszczyński (1905-1990).” In Złota księga Wydziału Filozoficz­nego, edited by Justyna Miklaszewska, and Janusz Mizera, 259-65. Krakow: Księgarnia Akademicka, 2000. • Majewska, Zofia. Książeczka o Ingardenie. Szkic biograficzny. Lublin: Wydaw­nictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, 1995. • Nelson, Leonard. O sztuce filozofowania, edited and translated by Tadeusz Kono­nowicz, and Piotr Waszczenko. Krakow: Wydawnictwo Baran i Suszczyński, 1994. • Perzanowski, Jerzy. “Bajki, bajdy i ziarno prawdy o współczesnej filozofii pol­skiej.” Portal Tezeusz, August 21, 2009. Accessed March 20, 2018. https:// portal.tezeusz.pl/2009/08/21/bajdy-bajki-i-ziarno-prawdy-o-wspolczesnej-filo­zofii-polskiej/. • Perzanowski, Jerzy. “Garść wspomnień o Wielkim Filozofie.” In Od teorii lite­ratury do ontologii świata. Materiały konferencji z okazji LXX rocznicy powstania Das Literarische Kunstwerk “Znaczenie – Modalność – Wartość” zorganizowanej w Toruniu w dn. 17-18 kwietnia 1999 r. przez Romana Stanisława Ingardena, Jerzego Perzanowskiego, Andrzeja Stoffa, edited by Jerzy Perzanowski, and Andrzej Pietruszczak. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, 2003. • Perzanowski, Jerzy, ed. Rozum – serce – smak. Pamięci profesor Izydory Dąmbskiej (1904-1983). Krakow: Wyższa Szkoła Filozoficzno-Pedagogiczna “Ignatianum”, and WAM, 2009. • Platon, Listy. Translated by Maria Maykowska. Warszawa: PWN, 1987. • Schaff, Adam. Moje spotkania z nauką polską. Warszawa: Polska Oficyna Wy­dawnicza “BGW”, 1997. Roman Ingarden. Portrait of a Teacher • Stróżewski, Władysław. O wielkości. Szkice z filozofii człowieka. Krakow: Znak, 2002. • Stróżewski, Władysław. “Roman Ingarden (1893-1970),” In Złota księga Wy­działu Filozoficznego, edited by Justyna Miklaszewska, and Janusz Mizera, Kra­kow: Księgarnia Akademicka, 2000. • Szczucka, Anna. “Warownia wołyńskich sierot.” Rzeczpospolita. Plus Minus, August 7, 1999. http://archiwum.rp.pl/artykul/237620-Warownia-wolyns­kich-sierot.html. • Święta Teresa Benedykta od Krzyża [St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross] – Edyta Stein. Autoportret z listów. Pt. 3: Listy do Romana Ingardena, edited by Maria Amata Neyer, and Eberhard Avé-Lallemant. Translated by Małgorzata Klen­tak-Zabłocka, and Andrzej Wajs. Krakow: Wydawnictwo Karmelitów Bosych, 2003. • Tatarkiewiczowie, Teresa and Władysław. Wspomnienia. Warszawa: PWN, 1979. • Węgrzecki, Adam. “Szkic do biografii naukowej Danuty Gierulanki.” Kwar­talnik Filozoficzny 23, no. 2 (1995). • Woleński, Jan. “Bolesław Józef Gawecki (1889-1984).” In Złota księga Wydziału Filozoficznego, edited by Justyna Miklaszewska, and Janusz Mizera, 235. Krakow: Księgarnia Akademicka, 2000. • Wroński, Andrzej. “Wspomnienie.” In Izydora Dąmbska 1904-1983. Materiały z sympozjum “Non est necesse vivere, necesse est philosophari”, Kraków, 18-19 grudnia 1998 r., edited by Jerzy Perzanowski, 123-4. Krakow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 2001. • Zagajewski, Adam. W cudzym pięknie. Krakow: a5, 1998. • Zechenter, Anna. “Zniszczyć kułaka nauki. Uczeni i uczelnie w kuźni komu­nizmu.” Biuletyn Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej 11, no. 3 (March 2011). • Zgoda, Leopold. “Trud istnienia – wspomnienie o profesorze Jerzym Perzanow­skim (1943-2009).” Argument: Biannual Philisophical Journal 1, no. 1 (2011). Recollections Leszek Sosnowski Grandfather Roman with his grandson Andrzej Andrzej Ingarden Recollections of a Grandson A conversation with the participation of Ewa Ingarden, the interviewee’s wife, conducted by Dominika Czakon and Natalia Anna Michna Let us reminisce about your Grandfather, Professor Roman Ingarden… I had two grandfathers. One who lived quite far from our residence but would visit periodically. And the other one lived close by, in Krakow, whom we would see at least twice a month, because Grandfather Roman maintained a rather close relationship with us. He would often come over for Sunday din­ners. I can remember that he was a very serious person who distanced himself from children. I mean, he would sit us onto his lap, of course, he would tell us stories, but there wasn’t a ‘playing around together’ relationship there. Some people turn into jolly grandparents when they’re next to small grandchildren, but not Grandfather Roman. He wasn’t one to allow for or participate in any childish antics. He was certainly a strict person, with a strong sense of authority and demand for respect, so the children kept a bit more of a distance from him in comparison to their other grandfather. Grandfather Roman would always ask us a few questions, sum up the answers, praise us for something here and there. He would often even give us cash prizes ranging from złotys 2 to even złotys 500, which I myself received from him. I was still at school at the time and belonged to a shooting club in Krakow, at Sokół. As a young boy I had a passion for shooting. There was a shooting range on my way back from my religion classes at the Norbertine monastery, where I would show off my great shooting skills. As there was a fee for using the range, I managed to successfully get rid of Grandfather’s prize within just one month. But I remember this prize perfectly because I had it meticulously put away, and then one day I came home just to find out that there was nothing of it. What did Grandfather give these prizes for? These were prizes related to academics. For good grades at school and soon. Not for encouragement, not for show, only very rationally given for achievements. They were, in fact, rational to the point that my sister, who was 4 years older than I, would get złotys 5, and I would only get złotys 2. So, Grandfather gave them out based on his judgment, our merits, but also with regards to our ages and, perhaps, needs. A similar image of Professor Ingarden emerges from his letters with Polish researchers; a very rational, distanced and serious individual, with a logical and cool-headed view of reality. That’s true. I can’t recall there ever being any kind of emotional political discus­ sion, polarization of opinions, sharp exchange of views in which Grandfather would participate. I had never seen any quarrel between the younger and the older generations, i.e. between my parents and Grandfather. What is your earliest memory related to your Grandfather? I remember when Grandfather came to Krościenko to visit us over summer vacation. I was seven years old. I remember rafting on the Dunajec River and that as a small boy I fished from the rafts. Another memory comes from the period in the 1950s when we lived on Westerplatte St. (formerly called Stalin St.). I remember that someone bought or received a shaggy dog, a Lowland Sheepdog, and this dog was supposed to be for me, as I was a boy around four years of age. There was a family celebration of some sort on that day. I remember a long table and the whole Krakow branch of the family, including Grandfather Roman, gathered around it. At one point, some food fell under the table. I bent down to pick it up and this little dog, later to be named Dżokuś, grabbed at it and bit my hand. That’s when it was decided that Dżokuś would, after all, stay at Grandpas. I suspect that he was supposed to be a gift for me from Grandpa, but ultimately Dżokuś stayed at my grandparents’ place for life and was their most beloved dog. I remember this event well, as it was quite painful. So, Dżokuś, the famous dog of Professor Ingarden, was supposed to be your dog? Yes. Children are often, either thoughtlessly or out of the kindness of one’s heart, given a pet, and then reality paints a different picture. That’s why Dżokuś per­manently stayed at Grandpas. He was one of those dogs that children would ask which side his head was on, since his long fur always covered his eyes. Recollections of a Grandson After this unfortunate event, did Dżokuś mellow out? Yes, yes, he became much more tamed. I mean, it’d be hard to say that a dog is an evil one if it is young and stupid and someone is trying to take something that has fallen right in front of his nose away from him. In any case, Dżokuś remained at Biskupia Street for the rest of his life. Grandpa would go for walks with him quite often. In addition, Grandfather was a photography enthusiast. He never parted with the camera; he’d always come to us dragging the large, analogue equipment with him. He also liked to pose for pictures and often posed for them with Dżokuś. Grandfather was way more interested in this dog than Grandmother was. Grandma had her hands full with the entire household and the kitchen. Professor Ingarden’s wife, Grandmother Maria? Yes, Grandmother Maria, called Nuna. The entire family called her that. We’d also say “Grandma Nuna” as children. So “Grandmother Nuna”, but “Grandfather Roman” without any diminutives? Yes. Romek was reserved for her son. When someone in the family said “Romek”, it was clear that they were referring to Roman Stanisław in Torun. Do you remember your Grandfather at work? I remember that the flat on Biskupia consisted of three rooms: a kitchen, a bed­room, a living room and grandfather’s room, which was gradually being over­taken by books as time progressed. At the beginning, my dad and Grandfather made bookshelves and all the walls were filled with books. But as the space on the shelves ended, the books were being put on the floor. Subjectively, it all looked like a big mess, but in reality, Grandpa always knew where he kept what. Admittedly though, that room was becoming less and less child-friendly, as it was simply difficult to move around in, so the children would just peek in sometimes, more out of curiosity than for any other reason. That was where Grandfather worked. Grandmother Nuna, in turn, lived her life in the space between the bedroom, dining room and the kitchen. She always cooked herself, never accepting any help from others. She was an extremely hardworking woman. But going back to Grandfather, I must admit that he was enough of a family man that when we came to visit, he would always stop working. He would never chase us out because he had work to do or let us entertain ourselves in another room while he did his job. But I remember that weekly visits to our home were always combined with scientific visits with Ms. Gierulanka, who lived one floor below us. These were always connected. Ever since Ms. Gierulanka moved into the same building, my Grandfather would go and spend an hour with her first, because they always had something to fix, discuss and plan. Then he would come for a dinner at our place, and my dad would drive him to and from us, as Grandfather lacked the ability to steer any vehicles. He had once attempted to get a driver’s license, but I think it was his individual decision to drop this idea. I can even remember my dad trying to give him driving lessons, which ended with him accidentally driving onto some scarp, which they luckily managed to back down from. Eventually, Grandfather decided to give up driving and decided that he was better off in fields he had more skills in. That’s why it was my dad who drove Grandfather around all his life. We heard that there are several famous and funny stories concerning Professor Ingarden and cars... My dad had a passion for motor vehicles. I remember from my early childhood that somehow, some aviator sold him a BMW which used to be used for pull­ing the gliders. It was a sports BMW, with a strong engine and a metal hood that opened to the sides and was fastened with leather straps. Beautifull retro style, however it was breaking down all the time. Dad decided to sell it. My Grandfather had some extra money from the Herder prize, or some other one, and therefore decided to buy a car. It was a Skoda Spartak, I might add. The car was parked on Stalin St., now Westerplatte St., normally at the curb, under Recollections of a Grandson the window. At that time, there was no traffic or parking ban. My classmates in primary school would say we had a taxi, because hardly anyone had a private car in those days. Dad, as the driver, took the opportunity when Grandfather was going somewhere to come along because he liked to travel, he was curious about the world, also as an architect. For me it was amazing when, much later, I realized that my Grandfather, who had well-established political views, traveled around the world in those hard times. His main goal had always been learning and contacts with the intellectual world. And he was able to pursue those goals. On the one hand, they threw him out of the university, and on the other, they did let him go to congresses abroad (even if only sporadically). I know that any submission to or cooperation with the authorities was out of the question. I think he just had enough esteem as an academic for it to be justified to let him go to. Besides, Grandfather never really troubled himself with politics. Would your Grandfather ever bring anything for the family from these trips abroad, as it was a common practice in those hard times in Poland? Grandfather was very uncompromising when it came to spending money. I re­member that when I was a teenager and went with my Grandfather and my father to Liege I was disappointed that we did not go to any stores. The world inside them was so colorful, but that didn’t move my Grandfather. My dad was mainly concerned with the architecture, and for a young man such as myself, aiming to become a mechanical engineer, these cars, these prospectuses, different gadgets at gas stations, various tools – all of it was really something… But no one but me appreciated it. There was no such thing as buying souvenirs. But when it came to gifts from his trips, Grandfather always remembered about us and brought small gifts for everyone. Do you remember vacations with your Grandfather? I remember the House of Creative Work in Rabka. Grandfather got a referral from the university and went there with Grandmother and they took me, little Jędruś, along. At that time, I was maybe 9, 10 years old. The creative work en­ Andrzej Ingarden vironment was not very interesting for such a tyke like me. I can remember my Grandmother, Dżokuś, walks, myself in elegant clothing, because breakfast was eaten in the professorial circle and all... And then walks around Rabka, but no one to play soccer with. It is undeniable that in Grandfather’s and Grandmother’s household everything was subject to academia and Grandfather’s travel schedule. Family was important to him, but it wasn’t like he ever exchanged the hat of the philosopher for the hat of a Grandpa. This dedication to academia and his job can be seen in Professor Ingarden’s letters. Yes. His only non-scientific hobby was, as I mentioned, photography. He had his darkroom in the bathroom at Biskupia St. He took pictures in black and white and often invited me to work on the photographs together. It seems to me that my Grandfather wanted to lure me into the world of photography. And I actually did some things by myself afterwards. I even had my own enlarger. It’s an amazing feeling to see something suddenly appearing on a piece of paper. Grandfather certainly put a lot of heart and time into photography, and he always brought these pictures around to show us. Grandfather also liked trips to the Tatra Mountains. He liked to contemplate and photograph nature. He also had many contacts in the community of Zakopane, in Witkacy’s community, which is why he would visit Zakopane quite often. He liked to go to Podhale and that was probably the motivation for him to eventually buy a plot in Poronin. My father designed and built a house on it, which was where my Grandfather was supposed to work. Unfortunately, he did not live to see the house finished, he died before that happened. But he would often go there before. The purchase of the plot itself was funny and relied heavily on negotiating with the highlanders. It must have been Grandfather’s authority that finally convinced them to sell it, although, as it turned out later, without a notary deed, only based on one written contract at the commune mayor’s office. Did Grandpa ever tell you any stories about Witkacy? No. But the question is whether he didn’t because he thought that these were no topics for us, or because he was convinced that there was no resonance, or Recollections of a Grandson interest on our part. I myself have always had more technical interests. I never had an affinity for humanities. I have read my Grandfather’s works, but it’s not a path I’d choose for myself. Did Grandfather talk about philosophy at home sometimes? No. He thought it’s necessary to have a partner for such talks. Did Grandpa have a favorite in the family? Anyone to put his humanistic hopes on? Probably not. If you see a philosopher in a company, in a café, on a bike trip, they are a completely different person from when they meet another philosopher, and you can hear that by listening to them talk. There are, of course, some philoso­phers who can talk with other people about philosophical matters. Grandfather had also tried and wrote this Książeczka o człowieku [Little Book about Man]… But my Grandfather’s books are too difficult for me. You mentioned earlier about Ms. Gierulanka, a neighbor and a colleague of your Grandfather. Yes. I had always considered her to be Grandfather’s secretary, I don’t know to what extent that was the case. At home, we often heard of “Ms. Dąmbska” and “Gierulanka”. Or “Grandfather is at Gierulanka’s, he will soon come for dinner”. He probably wore her out on Sundays as much as my professor did that to me when I was working at the University of Technology. He would order me to come to report to him regarding the entire week at 11:00 a.m. on Sundays. It later reminded me of my Grandfather, who also had his briefings with Gierulanka on Sundays. But the person I liked the most from all the personalities surrounding my Grandfather was Józef Tischner, of course. He was always cheerful, always dressed a little differently from the rest. Always in a good mood and making regular and humorous conversations with everybody. Afterwards, thanks to him, the entire society came to feel that philosophy could also be for the people. He liked to exaggerate, he liked to joke. So much, that sometimes one would wonder what the bishop would say if he were ever to hear it… Do you remember any conversations between Tischner and your Grandfather? No, unfortunately not. I recall that we would see him come and go, that he was there, at grandfather’s place at Biskupia St., or would sometimes drop by our home, on Fałata St. One thing that particularly sticks out in my memories of him though, is that he would come to see Grandfather on a motorcycle. I can also somewhat remember Dąmbska. But I only saw her on several occasions. Your wife has joined us. Maybe you also have some memories related to Professor Ingarden? Ewa Ingarden: Unfortunately, I don’t. I met Andrzej during our university times. We were sophomores when Grandfather died. I remember how all the faculty adjuncts were sending their condolences to Andrzej after Grandfather passed away. So, I wasn’t given an opportunity to get to know Grandfather Roman. I remember Grandmother very well, because my father-in-law would drive her everywhere, to Poronin, among other places. Grandmother lived at Biskupia St. for the rest of her life. Later my older sister moved in with Grandmother to look after her. EI: Grandmother died when she was 92, 93 years old. At the end she did not re­ally understand much of what was going on around her. But she was very cheerful. Grandmother completely devoted her life to her husband. For a while her pro­fessional career as a medical doctor, an ophthalmologist, was very active, but she suspended it afterwards and then never returned to her profession. EI: During the war and after it, Grandmother Nuna took care of children in Pieskowa Skała, because she was not only an ophthalmologist, but also a pe­diatrician. She worked at school, in the doctor’s office. Once I even met a lady who mentioned Mrs Ingardenowa who used to be a physician at her school. She remembered her as a particularly warm and cheerful person. I can say for sure she didn’t compete with my Grandfather in terms of careers. She quit her job and came to the conclusion that… EI: …that she will become a wife. So, the traditional family model? AI: Yes, in very traditional way. They never employed any help at home. Grandma Nuna did everything herself. She admired her husband and his work? Yes, but she never ran any propaganda. Instead she was very keen on the home. So that everything would be the best. Even when she was older and ill, she re­fused to accept help. She was very hardworking. She tried to please her husband and all their guests. Was Roman Ingarden a gourmet? Did he enjoy good food? He never criticized what Grandmother served him, he’d almost always praise it. In their home the patriarchal family model prevailed. One piece of evidence attesting to that is that my dad would drive Grandfather over for dinners at our place, but he never brought Grandmother along. But I must admit that my Grandfather always spoke about his wife in the warmest of terms, and she was the one he’d travel abroad with. For example, they went to the United States together. Was Grandpa a talkative person? I think so. With anyone at his level, of course. Andrzej Ingarden Krzysztof Ingarden, photog. A. Świetlik Krzysztof Ingarden Recollections of a Grandson Interview conducted by Leszek Sosnowski You come from a family of academics, a pureblood, if this still is of signif­icance today. Your Grandfather Roman Witold was a philosopher. Your father Roman Stanisław was a physicist. Have you ever felt any moral or psychological pressure to continue the tradition and choose the academic profession? My father was a mathematical physicist, he dealt with thermodynamics and information theory and had a passion for Japanese studies, my mother also had an education in physics. My interests, however, pushed me towards art, and in my teenage years I did not feel any pressure from my family to follow in my father’s and grandfather’s footsteps. If anything, I took after my uncle Janusz, father’s younger brother, who was a great architect. In my high school years, I had artistic interests and a generally rebellious attitude. I liked drawing, painting, photography; I thought I would go study at the art academy – maybe painting or graphics. I was interested in the theory and history of art – I read Strzemińs­ki’s Theory of Seeing, Witkacy’s crazy novels, I was attracted to conceptualart of: Warpechowski, Wodiczko, the Partums, Burniewicz, the film experiments of Józef Robakowski, I liked bossa nova, Miles Davis’s Jazz, a band from Krakow called Laboratorium and improvised music by Helmut Nadolski – that was what moved me! Architecture was somewhere far off on the horizon, not really available in direct experience I got to know more about it mainly through literature, while reading about the founders of modernism like: Le Corbusier, Gropius or Kenzo Tange. And, surprisingly, I did not see any connection between what I was reading about and what I saw in our coarse architectural landscape of the 1970’s – there was some sort of a major cognitive dissonance in me and an astonishingly limited affinity for self-reflection on my part. Art created a sublimated world of ideas, far more accessible and attractive than the reality. The decision to study architecture resulted from a mistaken assessment of an eighteen-year-old – from a certain inability to understand that architectural ideas are fought over with buildings one creates in the real world, and our reality was ‘plattenbau’. My uncle Janusz Ingarden and his wife Marta were already recognized architects at the time. And of course, I remember meeting them as a teenager. These meetings and conver­sations could have served as a warning to me, but they didn’t. I remember their occasional comments on the problems regarding the construction of various facilities – some stories from the period of the construction of Nowa Huta, the Forum hotel in Krakow and many others. The conversations I listened toduring holidays spent in Poronin consistently painted a picture of an architect who is fighting a losing battle against the adversities of the system, an architect subjected to political limitations and constant stress – as early as at the stage of making decisions regarding the design, not to mention the problems and compromises on construction sites, etc. However, this image, which would have discouraged any rational person from pursuing the profession, didn’t manage to break my idealized literary image of great architects, artists, space creators that I had built in my youthful imagination. I became an architect. You are an architect who seems to be both practically and theoretically fulfilled. Your understanding of architecture is comprehensive. Does the philosophy of architecture or the aesthetics of architecture play a role in any or both aspects and, if so, what would that role be? Architecture requires an idea, and therefore a text – it must be properly delivered, conceptually thought up, conveyed in a verbal statement to be legible for both the creator and the recipient. This initial idea must be extraordinarily expres­sive, as the project evolves in the process of creating project documentation, obtaining the necessary permits, and ultimately, in the construction stage. For various reasons some of its elements might have to be modified, for example due to some implementation difficulties. It is for these delicate ideas, for the poetry of architecture, that one fights physically for on the construction site. It is essential that after the completion of the building the legibility of the statement is preserved. And the main objective of the process is building certain cultural and aesthetic values while simultaneously consciously confronting other values in order to build a dialogue with the location, with its tradition and the broadly understood context. Architecture is a form of artistic expression, regardless of the fact that the means used to make this statement is the heavy, static, physical matter of the building, more often than not serving a functional, utilitarian purpose, intentionally acting as a ‘machine for living in’, to paraphrase the fa­mous slogan by Le Corbusier. An architect should be aware of the meanings he creates in his architectural language. In this activity, it is helpful to be familiar with construction techniques, as well as the history of art and architecture, and to be capable of their philosophical and aesthetic interpretation. When you were writing your doctoral dissertation you took your grandfather’s – Roman Witold Ingarden’s philosophical approach to architecture. Was it an accepting – non-critical, or polemical – critical approach? I wrote my doctoral dissertation at the Faculty of Architecture of the Polish Academy of Sciences under the supervision of Prof. Tomasz Mańkowski and, as it concerned not only architectural matters, but also issues of aesthetics, its reviewer was Prof. Maria Gołaszewska, the Head of the Department of Aesthetics at the Institute of Philosophy of the Jagiellonian University. I was specifically interested in the subject of presentation – representation in relation to a work of architecture; I made an attempt to order the language of architecture in terms of its semiotics. So I reviewed the positions of several authors with regard to their attitude to the issue of architectural representation. I also examined Ingarden’s notion of a work of architecture in this context, and therefore entered into a po­lemic with him about the scope of the terms presentation and representation. Ingarden was of the opinion that a work of architecture has a two-layer structure (the objective layer and the layer of visual appearances through which the spatial shape of the building is manifested), and believed that architecture and music lack the representational aspect. He classified architecture as non-representational art. He wrote: “in our perception we do not need to go beyond what is given, and thus, on the one hand, beyond a collection of audible sounds, and on the other hand, beyond a ‘building’”. In his theory the function of reproduction (repre­sentation) was attributed to painting and sculpture, in cases where the presented objects possess models in reality or are related to a literary or historical theme. My discussion with this concept consisted in demonstrating that the recognition or constitution of the spatial shape of the building, and thus its recognition as an object characterized by ‘internal unity’ is possible by comparing it with other objects of a similar structure and in the category of a certain spatial shape, which allows us to define a given spatial shape as a house, theater, church, etc. Moreover, the history of architecture points out a number of examples of works of architecture which are a direct formal reference to (and, therefore, represen­tation of) specific objects existing historically as specific buildings (copies of pre-existing buildings, use of architectural quotes in new objects, etc.), as well as to other types of objects, e.g. the building may take the shape of a duck, a wagon, a hamburger, a bird’s nest, etc. So it seems to me that limiting the construction of architecture to just the two layers also significantly limits the understanding of the essence of a work of architecture and it would be advisable to extend it by adding the layer of representation in the broadest sense of the word. However, my discussion with Grandfather was not the main objective of the dissertation. The main result of my doctoral thesis was the development of a catalog of types of architectural signs and their division depending on their relationship with the function of representation into: proper representations, semi-representations and dynamic architectural signs. You mentioned your relationship with uncle Janusz, who was an architect in the difficult times of Polish socialism. For obvious reasons, it lasted longer than that with your Grandfather; did it affect you in a deeper, more powerful way then? Janusz Ingarden always observed the activities of a young student of architecture, and then an assistant at the Faculty of Architecture at the Krakow University of Technology with kindness, though initially there was also a certain dose of distance of an experienced professional, which he was. At some point, when he retired, he decided to support the youth with his experience and advised us during our first large competition, for the design of a 5-star hotel near Rondo Mogilskie in Krakow. We won it in 1989 and you could say that this was the beginning of my professional career. Two years later, when the project was to be implemented, I set up an architectural office with my fellow students (including Jacek Ewy, whom I work with to this day) to fulfil this first highly complex and unpredictable hotel task. Since then Janusz had become a regular and close associate of ours, bestowing the merits of his huge experience upon us. He was the co-author of a number of designs and a kind advisor of delicate wittiness. He supported and joined me, with remarkable energy, in my efforts in 2001 during the creation of the Faculty of Architecture at the Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski Krakow University, where he gave lectures in descriptive geometry using a textbook of one of his professors, Antoni Plamitzer for several years, up until his death. You told us that you would meet your uncle Janusz during summer vacations in Poronin. I know that it is an important place for your family. What was its meaning for you? In the second half of the sixties my Grandfather decided to build a house in Poronin – a summer house which he thought would be a good meeting place for the family to invite his philosopher friends and students, so they could walk together around this unique Poronin ‘philosophical grove’ while enjoying philosophical conversations. He wanted this house to bring together his family and the circle of his friends and students. The house was designed by Janusz Ingarden and he was the one who supervised its construction, with the help of his son Andrzej. I can remember occasionally participating in the construction as a little boy – I spent my entire vacation helping Janusz and the carpenters – the Dziubas father and son – hammering nails, building the fence, measuring and cutting, it was a great experience for me. To this day I remember the smell of the chopped boards, the pain of fingers accidentally hit with a hammer and satisfaction from evenly nailed paneling. It was way back that I was already attracted to this carpentry work. Architecture is, after all, closely connected to that – it was an opportunity to become familiar with and understand the material, because you have to touch it and feel it to then know how and where to use it. Mountains had cultural significance for people of science and art in the pre­war and post-war period. The following along with many other people of culture came to Rabka, Zakopane, and probably also to Poronin: L. Chwistek, I. Dąmbska, S. Szuman, S.I. Witkiewicz. Your Grandfather met with them in these places and discussed various issues. Did these memories have any impact on the construction of a summer house there? Did your Grandfather have any other reasons beyond emotional attachments? I can only guess that the love of Podhale and the Tatra Mountains, the memory of many meetings with the intellectual and artistic elites who would visit Rabka and Zakopane in those years could have influenced my grandfather’s decision. My Grandparents loved the mountains. What is particularly interesting in the context of Zakopane is the history of his contacts with Stanisław Ignacy Wit­kiewicz, whom Grandfather met in Toruń in the 1920s, but after those meetings and first portraits Witkacy had created for him in 1924 their contact ceased for several years. It was renewed in 1933, when Grandfather was appointed a pro­fessor of the University of Jan Kazimierz in Lviv, and Witkacy began to read his recently published works, The Work of Music and the Problem of Its Identity and Das Literarische Kunstwerk (1931). The philosophical correspondence between them became livelier after that, there were also frequent meetings in Zakopane, walks along the Pod Reglami hiking route and the Strążyska Valley, the so-called significant talks, also referred to by Witkacy as ‘ontological talks’ during walks or in the Pod Siedmioma Kotami [Under the Seven Cats] bar in the Olcza district, where they’d meet sometimes. Grandfather highly valued Witkacy’s active mind and his authentic desire to explore philosophical issues. While spending her vacations in Poronin at the end of her life Grandmother Nuna often nostalgically recalled those times and Witkacy himself, saying “he was a very handsome man, though an eccentric one”. She remembered that one time he invited his Grandparents to his house in Zakopane, and when they entered the room they saw him hiding under the table and barking. After a while he got up, welcomed the surprised guests and continued to spend a lovely evening together with them. A lot of pictures from the mountains have been preserved. Those taken by your Grandfather depict the family, friends from Krakow and, of course, the dog Dżok. When the photos were taken by somebody else, they show your Grandfather and, of course, Dżok. One can get the impression that Dżok was the most graceful photo model. When you visited your Grandfather in Poronin, did you go to the mountains or take pictures with him? I remember Dżok from visits at my Grandparents’ at 14 Biskupia St., in the ka­mienica pod kotem [“tenement under the cat”] on the fifth floor to which you’d travel in a beautiful old Wertheim elevator opened with a special key. Dżok’s white mane covered his black eyes and he always kept close to Grandfather. They went for walks around Biskupi Square and the nearby Planty Park. Photography was Grandfather’s great passion (his photographic films have survived, with a total of about two thousand photos), so the favorite Dżok simply had to appear in the pictures. I, a teenager at the time, was very interested in all matters related to photography, the folded darkroom in the bathroom with an enlarger set on a board above the bathtub, the trays with chemicals, the cameras, etc. Just as with Dżok, my Grandfather wouldn’t part with the camera. It seems to me that it was a good SLR, an Exacta or a Praktica, with a built-in light meter. As I mentioned earlier, in the 1960s we spent our summer vacations with our Grandparents, our parents and uncle in Poronin, in Ms. Studnicka’s guest house at Tatrzańska St. not far from the plot where grandfather’s house was being built. To relax Grandfather liked to play solitaire in the evenings; while laying out the cards, he would call a ten ‘dyska’, and a nine – ‘nefka’. He knew a lot of different solitaires – I liked to accompany him and watch. During our walks around the area he would sometimes give me the camera, so that I could look through the viewfinder at the panorama of the Tatras visible from Galicowa Grapa and take a picture myself. It was my first contact with the world of photography. Perhaps it’s because of the inspiration from my Grandfather that I’ve been taking pictures from an early age. A few years later, I got my own camera from my father, it was a Druch – wide film, very simple, but it took pretty good photos, you had to be aware of the way the shutter and the diaphragm work, understand the depth of the field and know the exposure values. Fascinating things, that have been forgotten in the era of digital photos taken with phones. So I remember my Grandfather from such vacation walks and the family visits in Krakow. Grandfather, unfortunately, did not live to see the house in Poronin completed, he died in June 1970. He died in Krakow, the day after his return from the construction site. I was thirteen at the time. The day of his passing was described by Grandma Nuna in a letter to a friend of my Grandparents, Władysław Tatarkiewicz, as follows: […] How empty and hard has everything become for us here without Him. Even at this very moment it’s hard for me to believe that this great misfortune could have come so unexpectedly. Roman was recently in such good shape, full of creative power. There was nothing foreshadowing the near dusk. (He worked intensively). The only think that makes me wonder is that after conferring with Prof. Arendt he refused to participate in congresses in Finland and in America, which he had previously intended to attend. Last Saturday he went to Poronin with Janusz, he returned happy in the evening, he did not complain about anything and he seemed to have slept well. At 7.30 in the morning I usually brought him breakfast to bed. Meanwhile, on Sunday, he came to my room before 7 and laid down next to me. I kissed him, went to the kitchen to brew coffee, and when I came back, I noticed in horror that he could not get up or speak clearly. I immediately called Janusz on the telephone, asking him to bring Prof. Aleksandrowicz or Arendt. Prof. Brzezicki, who lived opposite from us, immediately rushed over alarmed. Romek had lost consciousness. His blood pressure jumped to 250. His condition was becoming dangerous. The ambulance we called drove Romek (having given him an injection to lower the pressure) to the neurological clinic, to Prof. Jakimowicz (also one of Romek’s students). They took every possible measure to save his life there – trache­otomy, oxygen, iv drip, etc. Still, nothing helped. Without regaining consciousness, Roman fell asleep at 8 o’clock in the evening. In the morning, our friend father Jan Popiel administered his last rites1. A truly moving excerpt from Maria Ingarden’s letter; it reveals her warm and devoted attitude towards her husband and describes the previously unknown events of the last hours of his life. The life of women standing beside important and great figures of culture and science is usually spent in their shadow. And yet no one doubts their crucial role in the lives of those creators. Maria Ingarden died eight years later in 1978. You started studying at the Krakow University of Technology two years earlier. Were your contacts with Grandmother Maria more frequent in those last years? What memories do you have of her? Grandma Maria Adela Józefa Ingarden, née Pol, whom everyone called Nuna, was an exceptionally good and very beautiful woman, the latter confirmed by grandfather’s photos of her. She liked literary fiction, was very devoted to her family and supported her husband in everything he did. She graduated from the medical school in Kiev, as an ophthalmologist. However, she also knew her way 1 Archives of the Catholic University of Lublin, Maria Ingarden, “Letter to Władysław Tatarkiewicz of July 1 1970.” around the kitchen, she had attended courses in this field in her youth – her brother Władysław Pol wrote in his memoirs: After my older sister completed finishing school, my parents made a decision to send her to a school of agriculture in Chyliczki near Warsaw. After the one-year course, sister could prepare extremely tasty food, bake wonderful cakes and make first-class sausages2. She must’ve also had a sense of humor, Grandma and Grandpa formed a perfectly matched pair. Always together, always in harmony, they created an atmosphere of confidence and love in the family. I remember her from the vacations spent together in Poronin in the sixties and later, when I came to study in Krakow after graduating high school in 1976. I visited her every once in a while and she was always very happy about this. I think I reminded her of her eldest son, Romek, my father, who, in turn, recalled his mother as follows: She was level-headed and a lot of practical sense but was also understanding and had a passion for learning. However, she did not have the time to read and study more, although she relatively read quite a lot. She had a scientific, medical view of the world and life, which did not, however, contradict her religiousness and recognition of moral and spiritual values. […] From what I remember she aged very well, she was simply inexhaustible. Warm and caring for children, for us she is an unforgettable presence3. Witkacy created three great portraits of her – we have photocopies of these pastels in our home to this day – she looks charming in them. The late years of her life, after grandfather’s death, were not easy for her. While in poor health, she survived Grandfather by eight years. 2 Krzysztof Ingarden's Family Archives, “Władysław Pol’s Diary.” 3 Roman Stanisław Ingarden, Roman Witold Ingarden. Życie filozofa w okresie toruńskim (1921-1926), (Toruń: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, 2000), 88-9. Jerzy Aleksandrowicz Biographical note Jerzy (Witold) Aleksandrowicz July 7, 1936 – October 17, 2018, Krakow interests: medicine, psychology, psychotherapy, anthropology After completing his education at High School No. 2 in Krakow, he took up the study of two majors: medicine at the Medical College (until 1958) and philosophy at the Jagiellonian University (starting in 1957). In 1965, he defended his master’s thesis written under the supervision of Prof. Izydora Dąmbska titled Problems of Ethical Evaluation of Psychopathological Phenomena. Professional career In 1959, he started working at the Psychiatric Hospital in Jarosław. In November of the same year, he became associated with the Medical College, starting with the position of general practitioner to later gain further professional degrees: in 1962 he became a specialist of first degree and in 1965 a specialist of second degree in the field of psychiatry. In the years 1971-1976 he headed the Psy­chotherapeutic Office at the Stefan Żeromski Hospital in Krakow, from 1976 he was the head of the Neurosis Treatment Center of the Healthcare Center No. 1 in Krakow. In the years 1976-1982 he was the Nowy Sacz Voivodeship’s expert in the field of psychiatry, in the years 1983-1984 he was the Plenipo­tentiary of the Minister of Health and Welfare in the field of psychiatry for the Przemysl Voivodeship of and Krosno Voivodeship. During this time, Professor’s research interests focused on the physiological aspects of mental disorders, such as blood coagulation phenomena and carbohydrate metabolism disorders. He also participated in clinical trials of new psychotropic drugs. Scientific career In 1964 he became an assistant lecturer at the Medical College, which allowed him to conduct work related to his scientific and research interests. As a result, he obtained a doctorate in medical sciences in 1966 based on the dissertation Results of Strain Caused by Glucose Loading in Depressive Syndromes. The same year he completed a six-month training at the Clinique Psychiatrique Universitee Louis Pasteur in Strasbourg. The main direction of the further research and clinical interests of Prof. Aleksandrowicz was psychotherapy, especially psychotherapy of neurotic disorders. In 1971 he was employed as an assistant professor at the Psychiatry Clinic of the Medical College in Krakow. In 1979 he obtained his habilitation. In the years 1976-1992 he was the head of the Department of Psy­chotherapy, and in 1992 he became the head of the Chair of Psychotherapy at the same institution. 11 years later, in 1990, he received the title of professor of medical sciences. After the re-merging of the Medical College with the Jagiello­nian University, which took place in 1993, he was first an associate professor, and from 2001 a full professor of the Jagiellonian University Medical College. Scientific organizations. Honors In 1959 he was admitted to the Polish Psychiatric Association, where from 1968 he worked in the Scientific Section of Psychotherapy, and in 1989-1993 he was the Chairman of the Board of that Section. Apart from his commitment to the PPA, Prof. Aleksandrowicz represented Polish psychotherapists in the Board of the Euro­pean Association for Psychotherapy. He was also a member of several international scientific societies, such as the European Society of Hypnosis in Psychotherapy and Psychosomatic Medicine, the European Association for Psychotherapy, and a correspondent member of the Swedish Society of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. He was also the Vice-President of the Polish-French Psychiatric Associ­ation. He managed the work of the Editorial Committee at the Polish Psychiatric Association, and he was the editor-in-chief of the bimonthly journal Psychiatria Polska [Polish Psychiatry] since 1992. He was also in the committees and program councils of Polish and foreign scientific journals, such as: American Journal of Psy­chotherapy, European Psychiatry, European Journal of Psychotherapy. Professor Aleksandrowicz received important Polish and foreign honors: the Gold Cross of Merit, on September 3, 1986; Officer’s Cross of the Order of Re­birth of Poland, in Warsaw on May 22, 2000; Ordre national du Mérite, April 8, 2005; Gold Medal for Long Service, in Warsaw on September 22, 2009; Medal of the National Education Commission, in Warsaw on August 29, 2011. Research The area of scientific interests of Prof. Aleksandrowicz included: research on epidemiology, psychopathology, psychotherapy of neurotic disorders and person-ality disorders. He is among outstanding Polish and leading world psychiatrists In relation to these issues. He investigated the structures of neurotic syndromes, and the results he obtained formed the basis for building a systemic theory of psychogenic functional disorders. Along with his clinical research, he developed a research methodology in the field of psychopathology of these disorders and psychotherapy. He achieved significant successes in this area, such as: (1) the development of research methodology and methods for diagnosing neurotic dis­orders, e.g. the development of the Symptom Checklist KO ‘O’ and the Neurotic Personality Questionnaire KON-2006, (2) the creation of an innovative concept of understanding and categorizing neurotic disorders, (3) the development and implementation of methods of applying hypnosis in the treatment of neurotic disorders. This extensive scientific research, which also included clinical practice and methodological reflection, led him to create an optimal model of therapy for neurotic disorders. In the years 1974-1975 he introduced the principles of comprehensive treatment based on group psychotherapy, which were adapted by various centers in Poland. These scientific achievements are closely tied to his organizational achieve­ments, such as: (1) creation of the Department of Psychotherapy (later the Chair of Psychotherapy), which the longest continuously operating therapeutic groups are affiliated with; (2) creating a training system for psychotherapists in Poland; (3) spreading knowledge through scientific and publishing activities. An important factor in the formation of Prof. Aleksandrowicz’s research and therapeutic approach was the study of philosophy, during which he met with eminent scientists from the circle of Roman Ingarden. This meant that he per­ceived psychotherapy and mental and adaptive disorders in a broadly humanistic, instead of just biological perspective. Hence he was interested in discovering the pathogenic processes, indirect and direct causes of the disease, and not just influencing the narrow, direct disease – medicine correlation. Together with the team he managed, he developed tools for the diagnosis of neurotic disorders that contributed to the scientific development of psychotherapeutic research. He expanded them in a novel way, introducing hypnosis techniques and controlling their activity by means of MRI. “I undertook”, he wrote, “measures aimed at introducing various psychosocial interactions into the practice of psychiatric treatment, one of them being hypno­therapy. I combined the analyses of hypnosis and hypnotherapy procedures with education in the use of the treatment method, introducing it to other groups of doctors, dentists and psychologists.” However, in this case, rather than groups, one can talk about generations of doctors and psychotherapists, who adopted his methods of treatment and approach to patients and creatively continue to develop them. In the opinion of many scientists, Jerzy Aleksandrowicz was a master, and this allows us – according to Prof. D. Dudek and Prof. J. Gierowski – to speak of the ‘Aleksandrowicz School’. Selected publications: •. Nerwice. Psychopatologia i psychoterapia [Neuroses: Psychopathology and Psy­chotherapy]. Warszawa: PZWL, 1988. •. Psychoterapia. Poradnik dla pacjentów [Psychotherapy: A Guide for Patients]. Warszawa: PZWL, 1993. • Zaburzenia nerwicowe, zaburzenia osobowości i zachowania dorosłych (według ICD-10). Psychopatologia, diagnostyka, leczenie [Neurotic Disorders, Personal­ity Disorders and Adult Behavior (According to ICD-10): Psychopathology, Diagnostics, Treatment] Krakow: Collegium Medicum UJ, 1997. •. Zaburzenia nerwicowe [Neurotic Disorders], 3rd ed. Warszawa: PZWL, 1998. •. Psychoterapia. Podręcznik dla studentów, lekarzy i psychologów [Psychotherapy: Textbook for Students, Physicians and Psychologists], Warszawa: PZWL, 2000. •. Psychopatologia zaburzeń nerwicowych i osobowości [Psychopathology of Neurotic Disorders and Personality]. Krakow: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagielloń­skiego, 2002. • With Jerzy A. Sobański. Skuteczność psychoterapii poznawczej i psychodynamicznej [The Effectiveness of Cognitive and Psychodynamic Psychotherapy]. Krakow: Komitet Redakcyjno-Wydawniczy Polskiego Towarzystwa Psychiatrycznego, 2004. • With Katarzyna Klasa, Jerzy A. Sobański, and Dorota Stolarska. Kwestiona­riusz Osobowości Nerwicowej KON-2006 [Neurotic Personality Question­naire KON-2006]. Krakow: Komitet Redakcyjno-Wydawniczy Polskiego Towarzystwa Psychiatrycznego, 2006. Jerzy Aleksandrowicz “…He was the one who was creating opportunities for critical thinking…” A conversation with the participation of Prof. Beata Szymańska, the interviewee's wife, conducted by Karol Kapelko and Patryk Miernik What aroused your interest in philosophy, Professor? Nothing in particular. It’s probably a vice (or perhaps a privilege?) of every individual who truly wants to understand the world, especially if they are pro­fessionally involved in psychiatry. After all, this is a field of medicine that par­ticularly fosters attempts to understand people and mental disorders, and to seek answers to problems and questions that are considered in philosophy. And it just so happened that from the beginning of my vocational education I had more to do with the thought of Jaspers, whose concepts were often discussed by my teachers than, for example, with psychoanalysis. What about psychoanalysis? Why wast psychoanalysis and not some other area of psychology that had an impact on psychiatry? Psychoanalysis was, after all, created for the needs of psychiatry, and no matter how its development progressed later, psychiatry remains – one could say – in­tegrally embedded in psychoanalysis, it remains under its huge influence, just as many other areas of European culture do. Of course, it drew just as much on other trends of thought, for example on existentialism, and nowadays, in turn, it is heavily infected with post-modernity and constructivism. But apart from those, it utilizes advancements from other areas of knowledge, for exam­ple from neurophysiology. It is, after all, part of medicine. Another matter is the actual usefulness of psychoanalysis in psychiatry, and we most probably did not study Jaspers just because he was ‘fashionable’ back then. Psychoanalysis doesn’t work that well in clinical practice, no matter how much it influenced psychopathology or psychotherapy. That’s why I’m asking about psychoanalysis. I am describing what was happening in the 1950s. At that time psychoanaly­sis influenced psychiatry so much, especially in the United States, that terms ‘psychiatrist’ and ‘psychoanalyst’ almost became synonymous. We were under a strong influence of that trend but, at the same time, some of my older col­leagues were scratching their heads saying “there is something wrong with all this psychoanalysis after all, we should rather turn towards other explanations, like existentialism and Jaspers”. That was when a critical approach to psychoanalysis was instilled in me, although, I have no doubt that everypsychiatrist should be familiar with it. Not even just a psychiatrist but every medical doctor. In that case, what was the relationship between philosophy and psychiatry for you? Which was more important, and which was more influential? Which trend turned out to be the most useful? I can’t really measure it like that. Rationalism? Neo-positivism? Structuralism? Kant? Bergson? Certainly, Chomsky’s concepts strongly influenced the way of understanding psychopa­thology and the search for optimal therapies. It was very useful to learn about all schools and philosophical trends. Especially some concepts of epistemology, because of their relationship with cognitive processes and their disorders. The most important thing was to get to know different views and their critical analyses. I think that the greatest benefit that can be derived from studying philosophy is refraining from treating it too seriously and immediately expressing various ‘inventive’ ideas one might have, assertions about what the world is like, what is moral and right and what is not. How were you influenced by Ingarden? I was very happy with his critical distance to the universally proclaimed certainties and the fact that he taught the phenomenological approach. This was extremely useful in the everyday work of a psychiatrist who needed to reach the reality of a patient’s experience. And did what Ingarden’s school offered suit you? Yes, everything that was in the scope of interests of this field was very useful in my search for answers to the questions posed by psychiatry. Even if I had had an alternative to study at some other faculty of philosophy, I’m not sure I would have taken it. So, it wouldn’t be an overstatement to say that it was the right decision to choose philosophy to supplement your medical studies? Yes. And it’s not just my opinion, many medical doctors, not only psychiatrists, decided to study philosophy. For example, Iwa Sabuda MD, PhD, or Andrzej Kowal MD, PhD. And who else could you name from among the people you met during philosophy studies? Among the students? Jan Woleński, Józek Tischner, Joanna Piasecka, Jan Szew­czyk, Beata Szymańska. I understand you mean Professor Szymańska, your wife, whom we’ve also interviewed. Yes, of course. That’s where we first met. This is one of the most important ‘benefits’ of taking up this course of study. As you wereentering the philosophy department, were you aware that you’ll be associating with Ingarden, who was already known as a remarkable man? Yes, of course. Do you remember your first meeting with Ingarden? No. There were a lot of them, but I can’t remember which was the first one. What was characteristic of Ingarden’s personality, I’ve heard he was quite an autocratic lecturer? I would never say that; it was actually opposite. He was the one who was creating opportunities for critical thinking, and who was encouraging discussions. He asked questions to which one had to find their own answers. More or less smart and accurate, but still your own. I don’t recall any of our stupid ideas meeting with a reaction they really deserved. And it doesn’t matter if he had his own opinion on what was stupid and what wasn’t. And I would agree with many of those opinions, both now and back then. Not to mention – it really bothered me in philosophical studies that most classes and lecturers were focused around the analysis and interpretation of texts and there was almost no chance to apply one’s own creative thinking. Ingarden’s seminar seemed to be the only exception. What classes conducted by Ingarden did you attend? First and foremost – his seminar on phenomenology. These discussions stick out the most in my memory. Beata Szymańska: We also had the history of philosophy with him. Yes, but the lectures in history of philosophy and the seminar are a whole dif­ferent matter. In the former you could only listen, become familiar with the schools and views he presented. At the same time, he rarely commented as to what he thought about different concepts. At the time, Besides Ingarden, under whom could one study Philosophy? In my opinion, Professor Dąmbska was one of the finest in the team, and she was also one of those we’d meet with the most, along with Makota, PhD, Półtawski, PhD and Stróżewski, PhD. What was your relationship with Professor Dąmbska like? I wrote my master’s thesis under her supervision and I remember her openness and kindness very well. She was always ready to help and would have many discussions with me, which helped a lot in organizing my thoughts. And what did the exams look like at that time? Thankfully, there were no multiple choice or fill-in exams! There were conversa­tions in which we were supposed to not only present our knowledge in the areas covered by the questions asked, but also some reasoning skills. Examination meetings were part of the student’s mind-shaping process, and not – as is presently the case – a mechanical test checking whether they memo­rized the correct answers. So, in your opinion the exams used to be more difficult compared to what they are now? I’m not sure. Certainly for examiners they took up much more of their time. And for students? I suppose that the situation in which one sits face to face with an examiner is sometimes more frustrating than struggling with the difficulty of guessing what the evaluator of a test expects. But you can share your doubts, consider alternatives… I can’t really judge because I’m not very fond of tests. It is often coincidence that determines whether one will pass and what the grade will be. And this particular ability to pass exams, in which one has to mechanically remember the one and only truth that determines the correctness of the answer, plays such a significant role. When I must give an examine using this method it is difficult for me to cope with the protest that arises in me, and the disgust with what I’m doing. What did Ingarden demand in classes and exams? The simple answer would be thinking – rational and logical. I have this memory of him saying that it was less important for a student to read all the required literature, and more important to be able to reflect on what was in the text in front of them. Did Ingarden assign you any specific readings? Of course. First of all, the classics that we had translations of, but also foreign ones that had to be translated. Mainly from German. At that time, German was such a language, without which – as Ingarden used to say – it was impossible to practice philosophy. What did he value and like and what did he not accept in his students? I couldn’t answer that question. Especially since, in my opinion , the expressions of his approval were not always based on his own convictions, but rather on the fact that he considered them educative or didactically useful in certain situations. B.S. He never expressed his dissatisfaction explicitly. If someone’s ideas drifted off in the wrong direction, he’d say: “That’s the one way of looking at it, however it would be better to interpret it like this: […]”. Like that anecdote from military training for students at the AGH University. It was about an exam situation where a student was asked what one should use to clean a gun. The student answered, “a logarithm”, and the examiner responded that sure, it could be a logarithm, but it would be way better to use a pipe cleaner… And can you remember any anecdotes about Ingarden’s classes? I can’t really think of anything right now… B.S. As I’ve already mentioned Ingarden wasn’t much of an ‘anecdote material’, apart from his dog’s stories. He had a unique sense of humor and he enjoyed wordplays, saying things like: “And grade thyself, Sir” – he was well aware it was an archaism and he’d say it jokingly, but I don’t remember him telling any jokes or funny stories. And how did the classes look ? Was it a casual discussion or rather a mono­logue of his? He would deliver monologues in the course of a casual discussion. And can you recall any meetings with Ingarden outside of class? We’d often meet him in different situations outside the lecture hall, but nothing enough to make a story about. He was never one to associate with students that closely. We’d go out for vodka or coffee with some younger lecturers. B.S. He kept a friendly distance. He’d talk to everyone, he was kind towards them, but no one was ever insolent towards him, because they knew how much of a notable figure he was. Jasio Szewczyk used to argue a lot with him during the seminars, but that’s a whole different story. I heard that Jan Szewczyk was a very vivid character. He came from England, didn’t he? Yes. He’d worked there in a mine, as he told us. He told us many stories about that time, but I’ll skip them for now. That’s a different story with a different hero. B.S. Yeah, well, Jasio Szewczyk and Józef Tischner were always the most talkative ones. While their level of commitment to girls and alcohol was roughly the same, which is worth pointing out, especially in Tischner’s case. B.S. Well, Józek always talked about the ladies very casually, but at the same time he kept them at arm’s length. But yes. Especially the ladies. B.S. It should probably be noted here that Jasio Szewczyk was a Marxist. A very passionate leftist Marxist. Ingarden’s opinions were on the other end of the spec­trum (he’d always say to us that he won’t lecture us on Marxism, because he didn’t feel competent on the topic himself), but he considered and discussed every idea and concept that Jasio threw at him, and he always valued his input. He was very open to disputes. Maria Gołaszewska Biographical note Maria Gołaszewska June 29, 1926 – June 11, 2015 interests: axiology, history of philosophy, aesthetics, theory of art She was born in Kurzelów, and from 1935 she was brought up in Kielce. She graduated from St. Kinga Secondary School and High School (partly in secret sets during the occupation). In 1947, she married Tadeusz Gołaszewski – a student of philology, later a professor of the Jagiellonian University. Professional career In the years 1945-1950 she studied philosophy at the Faculty of Humanities of the Jagiellonian University in Krakow. She defended her master’s thesis The The­ory of Perception According to Maine de Biran at the Jagiellonian University in 1950. The defense of her doctoral dissertation titled Creativity and the Person-ality of the Creator. The Analysis of the Creative Process, written under Roman Ingarden’s supervision, was successfully completed in 1956 at the Catholic University of Lublin. In 1957, she began working as an assistant lecturer (later an assistant professor) at the Chair of Philosophy of the Jagiellonian University, run by Ingarden. Her entire academic career was closely tied to the university in Krakow and Ingarden himself. She received her habilitation in 1964 on the basis of the work Philosophical Foundations of Literary Criticism (however, she only obtained the position of associate professor five years later, for political reasons,). In 1974 she obtained the position of university professor and 10 years later, in 1984, of full professor. In the years 1981-1996 she headed the Department of Aesthetics of the Institute of Philosophy of the Jagiellonian University, which she was the founder of. Academic career and activity Throughout her academic career, Gołaszewska collaborated with numerous aca­demic centers in Poland and abroad and held numerous positions in Polish and international organizations and philosophical societies. She was a member of The British Society of Aesthetics, Societe Hellenique d’Etudes Philosophiques, Polish Philosophical Society and the Lodz Scientific Society. For 10 years (1960-1970) she was the secretary of research of the Aesthetic Section of the Polish Philosophi­cal Society, she was also a member of the Committee of Philosophical Sciences of the Polish Academy of Sciences. She participated in numerous International Aesthetic Congresses and organized four of them: Crisis of Aesthetics in 1979, Eidos of Art in 1985, Metrum of Art in 1991 and Aesthetics for Future in 1996. From 1971, she was the organizer of the annual Aesthetic Seminars, as well as a supervisor and reviewer of numerous doctoral dissertations and habilitations. Her published works include about three hundred scientific publications in the field of philosophy (books, dissertations and articles published in such journals as: Estetyka [Aesthetics], Studia Estetyczne [Aesthetic Studies], Ruch Filozoficzny [Philosophical Movement], Studia Filozoficzne [Philosophical Studies], Reports on Philosophy). She has edited over a dozen volumes of works in the field of aesthetics, including Estetyka w świecie [Aesthetics in the World] (five volumes), an anthology of most important readings for contemporary text aesthetics. Research Gołaszewska’s philosophical research encompassed such areas as: aesthetics, ax­iology, ethics and philosophical anthropology. Based on the phenomenology of Edmund Husserl and Ingarden, she presented original concepts of, e.g. aesthetic situation, empirically oriented aesthetics, art and anti-art, creativity. A signif­icant and the most widely known element of Gołaszewska’s philosophy is the concept of aesthetic situation, which the philosopher derived from Sartre’s phenomenology, structuralism and existentialism. According to Gołaszewska, the aesthetic situation is constituted by the creator – work – recipient and an aesthetic value superior to them. The theory of the aesthetic situation is a pro­posal for a comprehensive approach to the aesthetic attitude of a person towards reality and serves to describe not only the components of the aesthetic situation, but also the relations between them. This theory combines the methodological postulate of practicing empirically oriented aesthetics, that is, the resultant of axiology and directly given empirical facts. Aesthetics understood in this way is interdisciplinary, based on the results of research of other empirical disciplines, e.g. sociology, psychology, theory and history of art, theory of culture. While developing her aesthetic concepts, Gołaszewska often refers to the findings of Ingarden’s phenomenology, but there are significant differences in the philosophical legacy of both thinkers. Gołaszewska’s aesthetics should be placed in the philosophical continuum of Husserl and Ingarden, however, it goes beyond phenomenology and is an attempt to reinterpret its main assumptions. The scientific output of Gołaszewska is a mosaic of many different philosophical themes and traditions. Having started from the philosophical assumptions of phenomenology, existentialism and structuralism, the author of The Outline of Aesthetics created her own concept of axiologically and anthropologically oriented aesthetics, which takes empirical methods into account. Selected publications •. Twórczość a osobowość twórcy. Analiza procesu twórczego [Creativity and the Per­sonality of the Creator. Analysis of the Creative Process]. Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe KUL, 1958. •. Filozoficzne podstawy krytyki literackiej [Philosophical Foundations of Literary Criticism. Warszawa: PWN, 1963. •. Świadomość piękna. Problematyka genezy, funkcji, struktury i wartości w estetyce [Awareness of Beauty. Issues of the Genesis, Structure, Function and Value in Aesthetics]. Warszawa: PWN, 1970. •.Zarys estetyki. Problematyka, metody, teorie [The Outline of Aesthetics. Problems, Methods, Theories]. Krakow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1973; 2nd ed. Warszawa: PWN, 1984; 3rd exp. ed. Warszawa: PWN, 1986. • Człowiek w zwierciadle sztuki. Studium z pogranicza estetyki i antropologii filozo­ficznej [Human in the Mirror of Art. A Study from the Borderline of Aesthetics and Philosophical Anthropology]. Warszawa: PWN, 1977. • Istota i istnienie wartości. Studium o wartościach estetycznych na tle sytuacji ak­sjologicznej [The Essence and Existence of Values. Study on Aesthetic Values in the Context of Axiological Situation]. Warszawa: PWN, 1990. • Imiona miłości. Nowożytna myśl o życiu erotycznym [The Names of Love. Modern Thought About Erotic Life]. Krakow: Universitas, 1992. •. Poetyka idei ogólnych [The Poetics of General Ideas]. Krakow: Universytet Jagielloński, 1994. • Fascynacja złem. Eseje z teorii wartości [Fascination with Evil. Essays on the Theory of Values]. Krakow and Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, 1994. • Estetyka pięciu zmysłów [Aesthetics of Five Senses]. Krakow and Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, 1997. Maria Gołaszewska “…With Ingarden one had to be able to sail by themselves…” Interview conducted by: Natalia Anna Michna How did you become interested in philosophy, Professor? Why did you choose philosophy as your field of study? It’s simple. Because of the person who raised my interest in this field. We had a Latin teacher who talked to us a lot and in a very interesting way about Antique culture. She mainly taught Latin, but much of it went into Ancient philosophy. And that is why you chose philosophy? It was a funny thing, because when that teacher of mine found out that I was going to study philosophy, she told me I absolutely shouldn’t! That it was a waste of time, that nowadays philosophy must be based on mathematics, and that people should study math. But you didn’t listen and went to study philosophy? Yes. I was even enrolled in pedagogy at one point. At first it was just a semester of attending lectures, then there was a sickness, that’s why it was all kind of sloppy and occasional. But if you want to study seriously, you have to study under Ingarden. So, you chose the Jagiellonian University because of Ingarden? Well, so it seems, perhaps not literally, but he was simply the biggest authority. He was a professor, very respected in Lviv. I thought that if I wanted to study, I should do it under the tutelage of the best. How do you remember that time? Who did you meet? What did the studies themselves look like back then? I don’t really have too many good memories, because I was sick a lot. Krakow was very difficult to live in when you only had the minimum of what you needed and constantly felt those deficiencies. I also didn’t have many close friends. And what about the time outside of the lectures? Do you remember any ‘armchair’ criticism, informal philosophical discussions? Some would go out for a beer, it’s easy to figure out who, though. Who? Well, just the boys. And you wouldn’t? I was never invited. There were girls who were attending these meetings. Devoted fans of Ingarden, they wanted to study under him, but it didn’t usually go that well for them. They somehow lacked the talent. What subjects did Ingarden teach at that time? I remember his lectures in ontology, but back then he was mainly concerned about his book The Controversy over the Existence of the World. At first there was a crowd at his seminar, but only few stuck with it until the end. I also was a rare guest there in the first two semesters, as I spent most of my time in a health resort in Zakopane. Ultimately, I did pass the exam, in the end and that’s all that matters. Can you tell us a little bit about your master’s thesis? The topic of my thesis was the theory of perception of Maine de Biran. He was a philosopher in the 18th century, and I still have some of his works on my bookshelf. I wrote this thesis entirely by myself, as my husband, who was quite a bit older than me, thought he shouldn’t be helping me in any way and that I should do it myself. I managed to write a thesis which I think was 160 or 180 pages long. By the way, that can be checked, as I still have it on my bookshelf. I defended it in 1950. My reviewers were professor [Juliusz] Kleiner and one of the older professors. Ingarden would explicitly state that he didn’t approve of those new professors at all. Ingarden was your academic supervisor? Yes, but I’m not sure what that supervision entailed. There were no consultations. He had this rule, that one should independently write a thesis on a new subject. My subject was a new one, as nobody was writing about Maine the Biran. There were no publications about him, and I think it stayed that way until now. My work was completely innovative at the time. Was it Ingarden who suggested the topic of your master’s thesis? Yes, it was Ingarden. It was his contribution to my work. It was also one of the supervisor’s functions, that whenever I was helpless or didn’t know what to choose Ingarden was the one to help me. He asked me: “Do you know French?” and I said I do. So here we go. I got books in French. Luckily, some of the volumes I got weren’t mandatory reads, since the issues they discussed exceeded philosophy. Anyway, I read and wrote what I was supposed to. Looking back on it, what do you think about your thesis? If Ihad had more energy, then maybe I would get it published. But I simply had other topics, other issues I was dealing with and it was something that got pushed further and further back… and right onto my shelf – and in the end it’s a good thing it wasn’t auctioned off anywhere. Back to your reviewer, Professor Kleiner, wasn’t he was a Polonist, not a philosopher. Yes, Kleiner was a renowned Polonist. My thesis bordered on these disciplines. Ingarden even commented: “We didn’t even know you could speak […]”. Be­cause, you know, I hardly ever talked during the seminars. Barely ever. I was simply scared of being made fun of. Ingarden could sometimes say something so biting, that one would be convinced they know nothing for the rest of their studies. It was like that… So, he could taunt a student and was not one to praise them too much… As they say it now… what was it? Oh! Put somebody down. He could completely put you down… And were you ever in a situation where Ingarden put you down like that? I rather observed the cases of others. I never even tried to put myself in a situation where he could do that. But there were some brave girls. One of them would take on the hardest philosophical issue and she did somewhat succeed, but she never achieved much, she didn’t have any publications or articles. It sometimes happens that someone has a great start, but then they end up like the average Joe Anybody, who can bring themselves to say something, although they are not really certain what they mean. Do you remember what was your PhD dissertation about? I remember my topic, of course. But it should all be considered in the context of former times. And the times were terrible, political frictions, maybe even arrests. There were Polish communist era Secret Service lackeys everywhere and they wouldn’t even let me get my PhD for a long time. But I finally defended my thesis. It was the year 1956. The title was: Creativity and the Personality of the Creator. Analysis of the Creative Process. Who was the reviewer for the PhD? Yet again it was Professor Kleiner and Professor [Zygmunt] Czerny. They were true professors, not of those newcomers. And that was what Ingarden always talked about. As you’ve already mentioned, the 1950’s and 1960’s were undeniably hard times, also for Ingarden himself. He was made to give up his academic work twice. Do you remember any details from that time? I remember he got an order… well, a very persuasive proposition to stop giving lectures and working with the youth, because it was corruptive in the eyes of the authorities. Back then it was unacceptable for a prospering nest, of what they referred to as idealism, to exist. Long story short, the only valid and true philo­sophy back then was the Marxist one. What about the atmosphere in the academic circles, what did the students think when Ingarden was removed from his position as a lecturer? Ingarden was made to give up his lectures in the worst of Stalinist times. So was Tatarkiewicz for that matter… I remember that the third volume of The History of Philosophy was being distributed for some nominal amounts of money only among his former students. After that it got published, of course, but at first it was available only to some selected students. And how would Ingarden act back then? I remember when he was asked to give a speech to the youth. And he did. He gave a short, very pretty lecture on labor. You could see he chose a topic, which was acceptable by the authorities. Those were hard years… I remember him taking part in one official parade, but he really looked miserable therebecause he was forced to do it. If he were to decline, he would surely be removed and silenced in some way. Just the way it was back then… Ingarden would meet with several former students and a few new ones. The meetings were unofficial, in an apartment. I was there. In fact, I was the one who initiated them. But there was also Gierulanka, Marysia Goetel, Półtawski, his wife Duśka Półtawska and two other girls who would go everywhere together. They were exceptionally faithful and devoted, tried to make something of their work, but ultimately were not very successful in their academic careers. One of them was Marysia Turowicz, who worked for the Tygodnik Powszechny weekly Catholic magazine. There was also reverend Popiel. Ingarden looked at newcomers with distrust, which was well founded, because the situation could turn out dangerous quite quickly. It seems that the communist Secret Service ultimately decided that our meetings were harmless… What could we have discussed? Controversy over the existence of the world…? I don’t think they understood after all, it wasn’t worth the effort… Back to your academic career, how was it with your habilitation? The title was rather stereotypical, namely Philosophical Foundations of Literary Criticism. But it was dragging on and on. It should’ve been done faster but it couldn’t because of political situation. It was in 1960 when censorship was eased. The topic was safe, so that I could keep on pursuing my academic career. So, in the end I got my title in 1963. A lot depended on the political atmosphere? Yes, definitely. There was a thaw after Stalin’s death. It was an important mo­ment for me, because after that I got the confirmation of that doctoral degree from the Ministry. was relentless in my efforts. There was an unwritten rule back then, that the one who would go to places, pester, make others give them what they wanted, was the one who would win. My husband helped me. He was the one who walked out that confirmation. And Ingarden was preparing for a trip abroad. For the first time in six years or something. It was a big, big deal for him. If I remember correctly, he received a foreign scholarship from Poles living abroad, in Chicago, I think. And then he left for the big world. He would get furious whenever anybody bothered him in his preparations. But this trip was really important to him. He had a lot of friends in Germany, since he studied there. Back then Edyta Stein was around him a lot. There were numerous rumors about them… There was once an interview with a nun, who knew Edyta Stein. It was quite biased. There was something there about Ingarden wanting to marry Stein, but it was never confirmed… Apart from that Ingarden spoke German. He could give lectures in it. He knew French too, although he was less fluent in it compared to his other languages. What was Ingarden’s role and help in your academic career advancement at higher degrees? Did he help any… he certainly didn’t stand in its way. With Ingarden one had to be able to sail by themselves. His very existence helped. It meant a lot, him being there, being active, sometimes saying something crucial – one had to make the most of it. He conducted lectures at the time he was forbidden to do that. And those were really difficult, not for everyone. One had to have philosophical knowledge to benefit from them. That’s why there was only a handful of people there. This, in turn, gave rise to a circle of phenomenologists. I was actually surprised that so many people understood those complex philosophical issues. His lectures were meant for scholars, so they had every right to be demanding. I remember Ingarden told me once he met one of those party men and was asked what the deal was with that Gołaszewska. Ingarden told him that I was never engaged in politics in any way. And that’s when the problems started, with getting my next academic degrees. I remember that Szewczyk, which I looked on him as a classic idealistic party member, but it turned out not being that idealistic. He chose it because it made things easier. I remember he asked me to join the party once, in the hallway, telling me it would be easier for me then… There was a tendency among some to join for this reason, even among philosophers. It was fake and pretend. So, I declined the brat’s grand offer… And do you remember Professor Dąmbska and Professor Gierulanka? What was their relationship with Ingarden like? Yes, I do remember. Danuta Gierulanka was very attentive around Ingarden, planning, helping him out. I think it’s worth mentioning that Ingarden’s favorite hobby was developing photos. He simply liked taking pictures and having models to photograph. Not classic models, but for example Dąmbska or Gierulanka. He practiced photography, but never wrote anything on that topic. Did he mention his passion to students during the lectures? Not really. It was more about that precise phenomenology, very difficult to understand. Ingarden’s name is also connected with aesthetics and the philosophy of art. Did he have any favorite works of art? Any great masters he recognized in the field? He had quite a few of those. He would analyze many paintings, for example Vincent Van Gogh’s works. Ingarden understood painting, he was proficient in that area. Did he ever go to exhibitions? Did he have a keen interest in art? Yes, he would go all the time. I remember I was in Warsaw on a business trip and we went to an exhibition in Zachęta together – Tatarkiewicz, myself, and some others. It was Tatarkiewicz’s and Ingarden’s initiative. They were very content. Did Ingarden ever mention his approach to socialist realism? I don’t know if he ever grew to appreciate it, but I know that he had the tendency to express that socialist realism essentially wasn’t art. As a matter of fact, you probably wouldn’t find many who’d think it was art… Do you remember “Thursday evenings”? Such meetings did take place, Ingarden somehow ascertained his position as the one who follows through with youth’s initiatives. Yet he was also careful with the authorities, so that there would be no paper trail, because it would be too compromising. And I know he got a warning that said he should stay away from the students. In any event, I initiated those I defended my MA thesis, around January 1, although I can’t remember the exact date, and it was a celebration of my long-awaited title. I’m saying ‘long-awaited’, even though it wasn’t that long. And then they just continued. Those were student meetings with Ingarden? Yes, yes. They were informal. But Ingarden’s closest circle surely included Gierulanka, as well as Ms. Średzińska, who pursued her MA under his su­pervision. There was Jan Leszczyński, a former landowner, who was devoted to Ingarden. Leszczyński was sort of a lackey for checking the attendance list for Ingarden. Eventually he got the assistant lecturer position, and no one really knew the reason why… there was also Wojciechowska. What was the form of those informal meetings? They were mainly philosophical discussions. But Ingarden always cautioned us against telling anyone about it, spreading it around. No one could know that he was meeting with the youths! Even I couldn’t understand why Ingarden was so scared, but it was only after one read all those materials which were not considered in class, or even forbidden altogether, that they could understand his concern. And that was the time we started reading clandestine literature. Those who weren’t being published at all. Gombrowicz, Herbert, Mrożek. I had an entire bookshelf of that forbidden stuff! But Ingarden wasn’t a leader of any group. He always had his own views. The views of a man, who understands more and strives for more. Ingarden’s students were adult people who experienced the time of political prohibitions. They weren’t students sensu stricto. They were brought up in the age of Stalinism and then got to know different beliefs seeping in from the West. Thanks to a certain sportsman from France, and an honorable fee of course, I managed to get my hands on one of Sartre’s books. I still have it. Such a book could cost half a salary, or even more than that… Where did those meetings take place? At Ingarden’s? Yes, they were at his place. He would invite us. So would Gierulanka, for that matter. A name day was a good excuse to meet. So those meetings were both philosophical and social? Yes, they were also simply get-togethers. Tischner got really plastered once and it was really funny. I don’t remember much from it, but I do remember him being pale, because he drank a bit too much. All the boys were really young at that time… Did you also participate in those meetings and have fun with everybody? Sure, me too. I can’t say I didn’t… You know, when you want to have fun you need to cut yourself some slack. Did Ingarden also take part alongside the students? Ingarden would also drink, but always up to three glasses. Never more. I remember Duśka Półtawska was also coming. She was perfect for par­ties. I once wrote a paper, my first philosophical work and gave it to Ingarden. I rewrote it all very nicely using a typewriter and then presented some of its ideas in one of the meetings, organized on Ingarden’s name day. And Ingarden himself, with his own intonation, read this paper of mine in front of everybody. And he praised you? He never really praised directly. He would never say “This is good, dear…”, not at all. It was enough if he just muttered something to himself. But he, of course, wouldn’t read crap… Would you refer to Ingarden as your mentor? Certainly. He’d rarely praise, he’d rather criticize. I even got an unflattering note from him about one of my articles. But, unfortunately, for me letters were disposable. I threw them all away, even the scholarly ones. I still have one from Ingarden though, very, very critical, pertaining no to my own work, but to a translation from French. Ingarden made a lot of corrections and said that he would never take it upon himself to correct my translations again. And how was Ingarden in private? Quite normal. He seemed rather open, but it was just an impression, because I don’t think he was ever completely open and honest with his students. And how about the students’ anecdotes or jokes about Professor Ingarden? There was a lot of them. Ingarden liked telling short stories himself. Some­times during the lectures and sometimes in the meetings, those informal ones. Some of them were trivial. He wasn’t a serious grumbler; he had a sense of humor. Did Ingarden have any weaknesses? It is possible that he had some sort of weakness for Gierulanka. That would explain some things. For example, that she really guarded access to him. But Ingarden was never blinded by her. She guarded him so much that I cried rivers over it, but it just ended in Ingarden calling my husband and telling him that he would take me as an assistant lecturer. It was when the political climate had already changed, and the air was a bit lighter after Stalin’s death. So, we could say that Ingarden had a weakness for women? He certainly could differentiate between beautiful and ugly women Was it a weakness? It’s normal that a woman likes being adored by her husband, fiancé or lover… well, maybe not necessarily a lover… But there was something more to that case. After that they were friends for a long time. When you were a student, were you already aware that you were dealing with someone prominent, special? Yes, of course. Everyone could sense that, and it was all somehow raised by everyone around. But then again, it might just be my imagination. Can you remember who was the most import philosopher for Ingarden? He highly respected academic work of Dąmbska. Although she wasn’t a spar­kling personality back then, she was undeniably a special kind of scholar. Even though few would call her a genius. Maybe somebody from history of philosophy? Descartes or Kant? He himself was a Kant… He was Kant?! How so? Because he knew of his amazing abilities. I think he was aware of them. One could even say with full conviction that he was conceited, he walked around with pride. There was an international, philosophical conference in 1960, one of the first in the area. I asked Ingarden to let me go as a representative. I had to ask him myself. He’d never think to do anything for anyone else. And it was there where I suddenly saw a different world, one outside of Ingarden’s. One of my friends from Warsaw asked me who are some of the most important philosophers. And I suddenly realized that I did not know anything about any other philosophers besides Ingarden. And then I took another step which very clearly irritated Ingarden. I imported Sartre’s book and discovered another French researcher, Mikel Dufrenne. And that was the thing that cooled off my relation­ship with Ingarden, because I set my sights on others. He didn’t become openly upset of course… But Ingarden thoroughly saw himself as a genius. Well, maybe not literally a genius, but at least as a superior scholar. But he had his own masters. Husserl, of course. He was working on Husserl’s legacy for the longest time. Was there any famous thinker, whom Ingarden openly couldn’t stand? Undoubtedly, he couldn’t stand all those who were concerned with analytic philosophy at the beginning of the 20th century. Was he capable of being impartial and letting the students learn those dif­ferent philosophies? No, no. His preferences would always prevail. He somehow didn’t understand that philosophy should, in a way, be based on open-mindedness. Did he ever plays favorites with the students? Indeed, there were some cases. He really liked people who had exceptional tal­ents, mavericks. Oh, when it comes to those ‘in love’ with Ingarden, I forgot to mention Półtawski and his wife. She was particularly alluring… How about Ingarden’s political views? Would he share them with students? No, never officially. Everyone was afraid… But I could only understand it later… It was horrible. But we’d discuss politics in the informal meetings, of course. All the time. Ingarden was first and foremost an opponent of communism. Did Ingarden have a sense of humor? He had his own sayings. I will mention a story here. The lecture starts and Bębenek enters the room. There was a trio of sorts: Wypiór, Popiel and Bębenek. We’d always laugh about it with a friend of mine. Later, Popiel made it big, he became a rector. But anyway, Bębenek enters and Ingarden says that he’ll have them install a flusher over the door, so that nobody would be late… Ingarden expressed it more skillfully… ‘water for the latecomers’. He valued punctuality, but he wasn’t a stickler about it, because there were so many students eager to come to his lectures. People were intellectually malnourished. They were drawn to Ingarden, because they knew it was worth it. The lectures were very suggestive, interesting. They weren’t just some boring classes. Have you ever seen the photographs taken by Ingarden? Yes, I saw lots of them. It was his favorite activity. Quite honestly, I don’t know much about photography. But Ingarden certainly didn’t think he was producing some sort of crap when he was photographing, otherwise he just wouldn’t do it… And if you had to describe him as a lecturer, as a teacher? It seemed that the most one could wish for was to be his assistant lecturer. I even have this slip of paper, one got when changing positions from assistant lecturer to assistant professor. Because Ingarden had this deeply rooted sense of respon­sibility. Even for his pupils, students, who were quite few in the end. Out of a full room of twenty people only a few remained, most of them left, as they were convinced that they wouldn’t accomplish anything there. In your opinion, what kind of a person was Ingarden in private? Some matters wither. They cease to exist. That’s what I’ve noticed. And the thing that some took, for example, as an honor or distinction in 1952, others took as something demoralizing. I’m talking about the women here. Of course, Ingarden was aware of the existence of women. That’s for sure. I remember when I first took Ingarden’s exam in the history of philosophy. He always liked to refer his philosophical considerations to reality. So, one of his main topics was the theory of perception and he asked a question about it during this exam. And I was taking it with another student, though I completely forgot his name by now. He was really doing poorly. So, to make the exam easier for him Ingarden gave the following example: “You see, here you have a pretty, colorful dress on a pretty girl. But, of course, you are more interested in what’s under the dress…”. Later I was too ashamed to even admit that I heard it... So, it was really some sign, on the one hand of some sort of affection, on the other just a simple chat… But I never even mentioned it at home, my parents would surely think of it as scandalous… He wasn’t a so-called womanizer, but there really was something to it. I remember when Ms. Dudek-Piątek was presenting a paper, she was working in the field of Natural Philosophy, and Ingarden was staring at her as if he wanted to eat her up… Indeed, she looked very pretty. There was a lot of people around Ingarden, most of them wearing clothes of poor taste, and the charm of a woman is also magnified by nice outfits and a lot of tasty treats she keeps in store. I do, however, remember when one of my acquaintances bragged about Ingarden looking that way at her legs and saying (he can only be laughed at for this!): “Oh my, what a pretty leggies!”. Andrzej Kowal Biographical note Andrzej Kowal (April 21, 1938 – March 12, 2015, Krakow) interests: medicine, psychology, psychiatry, aesthetics, art therapy In 1961 he graduated from the Silesian Medical Academy (Katowice). Afterwards he came to Krakow, where he began studying philosophy at the Jagiellonian University, earning his degree in 19651. Professional career During his second studies, he started working at the clinic of the Medical Col­lege in Krakow, where he completed an internship in internal medicine as well as obstetrics and gynecology. His military service was a short episode in his life, which he began in 1963 in Pyrzowice near Katowice, which did not, however, prevent him from completing his philosophical studies. After a two-year period in the army, he returned to Krakow, where he found employment at the State Hos­pital for the Neurotic and Mentally Ill (currently the Józef Babiński Psychiatric Hospital in Kobierzyn). He went through all the administrative degrees, starting from the position of general practitioner, while simultaneously completing his specialization in psychiatry. In July 1973, he became the head of the Rehabili­tation Department, and in 1978 he was the head of the Day Care Department. 1 A significant part of the information contained here was taken from Ewa Jędrys’s, Andrzej Kowal (1938-2015), accessed September 10, 2017, http://psychiatriaisztuka.pl/stowarzyszenie/dr-andrzej-kowal/. In 1991, he was appointed the director of the Specialized Psychiatric Health Care Centre in Krakow, later renamed to the Józef Babiński Specialized Hospital. Dr. Kowal was a good organizer and as a hospital director – a good host. He entered into international cooperation with the Foundation for Polish-German Cooperation, thanks to which he was able to renovate part of the hospital. Thanks to his contacts with Copenhagen County in Denmark, he received furniture and beds. He opened the Department of Treatment of Personality Disorders in 2002 as the first in Poland. He received a grant from EU funds for the years 2002-2003, preparing Poland for integration with the European Union. The project entitled “Spaces of Life – Psychiatry and Art” was implemented together with partners from: Austria, Belgium, Spain, Germany, Poland and Italy as part of the Cul­ture 2000 Program. Entering the hospital and park complex into the Register of Monuments allowed him to obtain subsidies from the Social Committee for the Restoration of Monuments of Krakow for renovations of the hospital chapel and the theater building. He defended the integrity of the historic hospital and park complex, even at the price of his own position, noticing its great historical value. He made profound changes to the addiction treatment system, creating a Voivodeship Center of Therapy for Addiction and Codependency at his Hospi­tal. In 2002, he unveiled a monument dedicated to the patients of the National Institute for the Mentally Ill in Kobierzyn, murdered in Auschwitz in 1942 as part of the T4 Operation. The replica of the monument was blessed by Pope John Paul II in Błonia Park in Krakow. He was a therapist valued for introducing or initiating innovative and un­conventional therapeutic forms. He was also appreciated for being a precursor of activities related to the rehabilitation of mentally ill patients. As one of the first, he organized outdoor painting and rehabilitation camps for patients of the Hospital in Poland and abroad. He introduced revolutionary changes to the treatment system, as well as adopted a modern humanistic approach to the patients. He created occupational therapy workshops in all hospital departments, while he established various art therapy workshops in the rehabilitation departments. This way he combined medical and psychological interactions with early rehabilitation, which began during the patient’s stay in the hospital. His unquestionable successes included the creation of the Center of Therapy through Art, which he established in the former Villa of Directors. Inspired by the success of the “Spaces of Life” European project, he founded the Psy­chiatry and Art Association, which he became president of. The main goal of the Association was to arouse the artistic interests of patients and support those who were already engaged in artistic creation. As part of this activity, he organized monthly meetings with artists. He promoted artistic activities and the art of the ill through the Association and the Art Therapy Section of the Polish Psychiatric Association, as well as privately through conference speeches. As a result, he discovered many artists of art brut, which was neither the main nor the only area of his professional activity. The group of such well-known artists includes, among others: Władysław Wałęga, Leszek Zając, Renata Bujak, Robert Korzeniowski, Piotr Stanisz, Sylwia Mensfeld and Tadeusz Andrzejewski. In 2001, Dr. Kowal received the Award of the Minister of Health for achieve­ ments in the field of health protection. One of such achievements was the creation of a modern program of psychiatric prevention, rehabilitation and treatment. This approach to resulted from the philosophy of Dr. Kowal’s work. He recognized the subjectivity and autonomy of each patient, inspiring them to set their creative forces free, which would help return to health and society. He was an advocate of creative therapy, about which he wrote that it is a challenge for modern medicine saturated with technology and knowledge about the reactions of the human body. Without questioning the achievements of modern medicine, creative therapy reminds us that a man is an individual who cannot be subordinate to the pattern of ‘stimulus – reaction’. Selected publications: • Ed. Moc sztuki. Innowacje w praktyce terapii sztuką i terapii kreaty­wnej [The Power of Art. Innovations in the Practice of Art Therapy and Creative Therapy]. Krakow: Krakowski Szpital Neuropsychiatryczny im. J. Babińskiego, 1996. • Ed. Ustawodawstwo psychiatryczne we Francji i w Polsce [Psychiatric Legislation in France and Poland]. Translated into and from French by Marcin Eckstein, Dominique Maeker, and Kazimierz Rey. Krakow: Krakowski Szpital Neuro­psychiatryczny im. J. Babińskiego, 1997. • With Maria Pałuba, ed. Psychiatria i sztuka. Oblicza psychiatrii. XLI Zjazd Psychiatrów Polskich, Warszawa, 17-19 czerwca 2004 [Psychiatry and Art: Faces of Psychiatry: XLI Congress of Polish Psychiatrists, Warsaw, June 17-19, 2004]. Krakow: Szpital Specjalistyczny im. dra Józefa Babińskiego, 2004. • “Arteterapia w medycynie i edukacji” [Art Therapy in Medicine and Educa­tion]. In Arteterapia. Od rozważań nad teorią do zastosowań praktycznych [Art Therapy. From Considerations on Theory to Practical Applications], edited by Wiesław Karolak, and Barbara Kaczorowska, Łódź: Wydawnictwo Akademii Humanistyczno-Ekonomicznej, 2011,15-20. • “Humor i transcendencja” [Humor and Transcendence]. In Wobec Dobra i Prawdy w dialogu z Tischnerem [Towards Good and Truth in Dialogue with Tischner], edited by Aleksander Bobko, and Maria Karolczak, 305-11. Krakow: Instytut Myśli Józefa Tischnera, and Europejska Sieć Pamięć i Solidarność, 2013. • With Grażyna Borowik, ed. Edukacja w arteterapii. Międzynarodowa Konferencja Szkoleniowo-Naukowa z cyklu “Psychiatria i Sztuka” [Education in Art Therapy: International Training and Scientific Conference from the series „Psychiatry and Art”]. Krakow: Wydział Sztuki Uniwersytetu Pedagogicznego im. Komisji Edukacji Narodowej, and Fundacja Instytut Wydawniczy ‚“MAXIMUM”, 2013. • With Grażyna Borowik, ed. Światy równoległe. Sztuka narzędziem terapii i komunikacji. Międzynarodowa Konferencja Szkoleniowo-Naukowa z cyklu “Psychiatria i Sztuka” [Parallel Worlds: Art as a Tool for Therapy and Com­munication]. Krakow: Instytut Malarstwa i Edukacji Artystycznej Wydział Sztuki Uniwersytetu Pedagogicznego im. KEN, and Stowarzyszenie Psychiatria i Sztuka, 2013. Andrzej Kowal “…if you do any scientific work, you should do it neatly…” Interview conducted by Karol Kapelko and Rafał Kur Where did the Professor’s interest in philosophy come from? At first, I studied medicine in Silesia, and the nature of those studies was closer to vocational training. At that time there were probably two courses in medi­cine, each of which had about 400 people. Medical studies are studies, or rather a higher vocational school, where you must master some skills and a very large amount of material without any closer analysis. At that time, I held an interest in philosophical matters, indefinite from their core, and I used the period after the reform to my advantage, because reforms always occur.. This consisted the completion of five-year intensive studies, a year of internship during the diploma break, and even before that one had to pass some of the exams and go through a year of a postgraduate internship. And in the time between pre-graduate and post-graduate internships, there was sort of a gap, because you could not always get a position in the hospital to do the internships. After graduating from those studies I came to Krakow and applied to study philosophy. Simultaneously I took the pre- and post-graduate internships, and before I was over with it, I managed to do three years of philosophy. The in­ternships were at clinics like today, where one took a part in a patient’s visit to see what’s wrong with them. Later, as the authorities repressed students in various ways for various reasons, immediately upon my completion of the postgraduate internship, I was drafted for the so-called periodic service in the army. At that time, it was a military periodic service that lasted two years. I was directed to Babie Doły, somewhere far away. Professor Ingarden and Dąmbska would write to the authorities on my behalf. I got lucky again. Someone from Prof. Ingarden’s family, some cousin of his, was a high-ranking officer, and at the same time a doctor, in the National Air Defense in Warsaw. I was taken into the Air Force and thanks to this acquain­tance I was reassigned to the air regiment which was at the airport in Pyrzowice. There I could rearrange my activities in such a way that I had two days off a week. Hence, I was able to complete all the activities that were mandatory at the fourth and fifth year thanks to the kindness of Ingarden and Dąmbska. I managed to complete my studies and fulfill the obligation of the so-called periodic service at the same time. I am getting personal here, but they reflect the atmosphere that was around back then. There were very few students at the university, which is why Prof. Ingarden had monographic lectures which he did not repeat, so all of us, from the first- to the fifth-year, would go to his classes every semester. A new monographic lecture was delivered each year, so we could listen to and get to know each other with students from other years. Different people came to study, including Tischner, various artists, people from many fields. You could meet very interesting indi­viduals who were particularly interested in Ingarden’s philosophy. Tischner completed his master’s degree under Ingarden? Yes. Aleksandrowicz did before him and his wife Beata. Szymańska herself. Be­sides them a number of other outstanding people. Krzysztof Zanussi too, al­though I do not know if he completed his degree, but he participated in the lectures. I visited him once in Warsaw, as a student. Poświatowska was also one of the philosophy students. Was Adam Zagajewski joining the lectures too? Perhaps. This one is fuzzy in my memory. I heard that Ingarden allowed everyone who was eager to join, regardless of where they came from. Yes, you could join the lectures. Kępiński also came to some. How did your professional career develop? First, I wanted to get a job at the clinic, but I failed, despite having had a chance, I would’ve had to wait for a month or two. However, I could not wait, I had already started a family. I was a stranger in Krakow and I had to start working immediately. I took a job at Babiński Hospital in 1965. There I went through all the levels, I became the director and continued as one for 12 years, until my retirement, that is until 2003. And then I got hired here at the Mental Health Clinic. However, I did not make much of an academic career here, although I was extremely interested in the scope of the history of the philosophy of medicine, especially psychiatry. Ingarden was also pushing me in that direction, giving me various books. But it just turned out that I was unable to properly arrange my classes, and wait to become associated with some scientific institution with no benefits. I tried, whether with the philosophy of medicine or the history of medicine, but nothing much came of it. Do you remember any interesting events or stories related to Ingarden? The most interesting things that are now coming to mind are the private meet­ings. Ingarden called them privatissima. There were few people there, probably about five. Piotr Waszczenko, Krystyna Dobrowolska, Kazimierz Czarnota and Jerzy Perzanowski have already passedaway. Ingarden organized seminars when the philosophical studies were suspended. The subject matter was dif­ferent, about values, about the concepts of ideas. I remember that report on the topic was written by Piotr Waszczenko. He was one of the most talented people in our year, later sent to Vienna by Prof. Ingarden. He was a wonder, young, just like Perzanowski, admitted straight after high school. Very mature, gifted, linguistically too. Only, somehow, he aged really fast. His hair turned grey, he became a drunk, turned into an addict, and the promising person he was contracted various diseases and died early. Was it the trip to Vienna that negatively influenced his life? That I do not know, but I think it was alcohol that would influence him the most. He used to come to classes drunk or under the influence. Nobody could help him. In general, his case is interesting. Talented, one could say “a prodigy”, with exceptional philosophical abilities who became very old very quickly, while still a young man. This all happened at an accelerated pace. He married a friend, Krystyna Dobrowolska, who, in turn, became mentally ill. Most recently she lived in Wadowice, I think. Perhaps she is still alive some­where, although that is unlikely. And the other such talent like Waszczenko was Jurek Perzanowski. Dąmbska’s PhD student. Yes, but because of the cancer he also died prematurely. Jurek was one of my closest friends. As for private stories, when Ingarden got sick, I, as a physician, was allowed to be at his bedside at the hospital on Botaniczna St. I was with him in his last days, when he was unconscious. He had an exceptionally large cerebral infarction. What pushed you to study philosophy? Was it a desire to supplement your medical studies or simply curiosity? It was rather curiosity, I was interested in more theoretical things and, as I said, medicine is a vocational school of sorts, in medical studies one was not taught to think. Maybe it was different a lot earlier, when Chałubiński, or others like him taught thinking. There was a certain amount of knowledge and certain behavioral patterns one had to learn, but I was always interested in how the human brain works to think logically, to draw conclusions, to think about this or that. The human being has always been fascinating to me. Additionally, I had a friend who was also a friend of Fr. Tischner. Priest as well, his name was Herbert Krupek. He worked in Silesia. There were three such friends: Tischner, Krupek and perhaps Kłoczowski. A philosopher from Lublin and Warsaw. They studied together at the Academy of Catholic Theology in Warsaw, and then Tischner came to Krakow, because he had an assignment there, and the other one went over there. In Krakow, Tischner came upon Wojtyła, who was open to people who wanted to learn. Krupek was less fortunate. At the end of my studies I chose psychiatry as a science that tells you the most about humans. During my studies I completed psychiatric internships at the hospital. I treated philosophy as a complement to my studies. This type of interest can be called the philosophy of medicine, such as that practiced by Chałubiński, or later Biernacki and Biegański in Poland. Did you do one of your internships under Kępiński? When I came to Krakow, I signed up for a psychiatry internship, and Kępiński was there at the time. I tried to get it, but I did not manage to. I was also involved in a voluntary internship at the Department of the History of Medicine. That interested me. And then I became fascinated with philosophy because it really was special times, with many people whose enthusiasm was contagious. Did Ingarden influence you in any way? Yes, of course. At one point we had a very personal relationship and I wanted to involve myself more deeply in philosophy that uses psychiatric and medical experiences. And then, all the time in fact, also his research in the field of aes­thetics. I am currently involved in art therapy. And Ingarden’s aesthetic studies prove especially useful here. Both their definitions and their concepts. I published something in the field of art therapy at the Pedagogical University. Are there any interesting results after years of such research? They are not very many, but they are rather interesting, in the field of art ther­apy This is a fairly broad term, where a number of different meanings can come to mind. There are also many associations in the world that are involved in it: in Great Britain, in the United States, but all of them define art therapy as a kind of psychotherapy, i.e. it is a psychotherapy that uses artistic means, painting, music or drama, in its course. But basically, according to the definitions of these associations, art therapy or music therapy is subject to psychotherapy. That seems to me to be too much of a one-sided an approach, as in my opinion, art therapy or therapy through art and psychotherapy are interdependent, they are intertwined. This is a therapy that is psychotherapy, but it is also one that is not psychotherapy. And I have similar results from my experience at the hospital. For example, artists who graduated from the Academy of Fine Arts who were art therapists have better achievements in the field than academics who have an education in psychology. The latter approach the matter in such a way that they have an established procedure of their own, whether in the form of tests or techniques of conduct which they impose on their patients. The artists know more about the creative process and they do not impose, but simply allow spontaneous action. We have quite a lot of achievements in this field at the Babiński Hospital, where we discovered such talents as Władysław Wałęga. Some of our patients were discovered and entered culture, became famous artists, and if it were not for this activity they would have never been known. It was exactly the art therapy carried out by those who graduated from the Academy of Fine Arts, or with dual artistic and philosophical education. Therefore, my last papers [delivered] at conferences, concerned an extended definition of art therapy, where it is not just about the fact that a person creates, that they take some action. It is about some result of this action and this result in the form of art is something that arises in the world. This result is something new, and something of great importance… because, it turns out that other people look at it and perceive it, and become influenced by it. Looking back on it from today’s perspective, do you think that you were right to choose philosophy? Yes. I think it was a very good choice and time well spent. Were there any informal student discussions? Yes. I did not take part in these meetings because I would usually drop by Krakow for a moment and I’d have to go somewhere else right away to tend to a number of matters elsewhere, as I mentioned before. I don’t remember big collective student meetings. Yes, we would go out with Jurek Perzanowski or his friends and talk to each other individually, but it was not like today, with all the philosophical banquets. They have a very journalistic nature. I prefer discussions in a smaller group, after all. Do you remember any other distinctive lecturers at the Jagiellonian Uni­versity? That would be, of course, Professor Dąmbska – she was the one person under whose supervision you could write your master’s or doctoral dissertation. The others were all assistant lecturers at the time. But Stróżewski, Półtawski and Gierulanka would all certainly be worth mentioning. Was it not the case that everyone had to take classes with Ingarden? No, you could choose other classes. With Professor Leszczyński, who taught the introduction of philosophy. Ingarden had monographic lectures. Professor Dąmbska taught more systematically, the history of philosophy. There was also Professor Pasenkiewicz, whom Jurek Perzanowski appreciated very much. Later, the Marxist and Leninist Chair, which was overseen by Augustynek, was estab­lished. It was an antidote of sorts to reactionary philosophy, and hardly anyone went there, but they also had their people who were interested in it. What year was this chair founded? It was established in the years 1961-1965. Maybe around 1963. I cannot re­member exactly, it’s quite blurry after all these years. Do you remember anything about Ingarden’s relationship with Professor Dąmbska and with Professor Gierulanka? They were good, very good. Gierulanka was one of his assistant lecturers, so they had to have a good relationship. The one with Dąmbska was good as well, but it’s worth noting that they had different interests, different areas of expertise. They certainly respected and appreciated each other. They were elite professors. Did anyone conduct workshops to Ingarden’s lectures? His assistant lecturers: Półtawski, Stróżewski and Gierulanka. She also lectured in psychology. Can you remember what Ingarden required from his students? Ingarden valued activity and thinking in class, instead of just memorizing information. Well, of course, you had to master certain material, but he ap­preciated those who reflected on it and spoke up in discussions. He was not authoritarian and unapproachable. We had great respect for him. One could say that he treated students as his colleagues, like philosophers. Of course, we knew who we were dealing with. We were aware that he was a recognized authority. For us it was a special privilege to learn from him. I remember my experience in medical studies, where it was extremely difficult to approach a professor, and there was no personal contact with them whatsoever. In Ingarden’s case, there was this directness, and one could even count on him with one’s matters outside of class, as it was in my case. He treated us like his younger colleagues. Even during visits to his home, quite frequent in connection with this private seminar, one did not feel any distance. Or rather, we felt it because of the difference in knowledge, because in comparison to him, we knew nothing and could not do anything. But we were dealing with someone who had an unimaginable amount of knowledge and wanted to pass it on to us. I think that it was also the issue of a certain attitude of a professor towards students, different from today’s. Everyone could speak up in a dis­cussion with him. Of course, not just randomly, but as long as it was related to the subject of the class it was okay to talk. Professor Ingarden conducted his seminars and lectures on subjects he was currently researching, so for us these were new problems, which he probably also used later in his work. So, in a sense, he consulted with students about what he was working on? In a sense, yes, but not directly. Various people came to these classes. There was Jan Szewczyk, who always had some controversial views, very leftist, taken from Marxist philosophy, but he spoke very matter-of-factly and always had a slightly different opinion, which made our discussions more interesting. He was aclose friend with Tischner. Because Tischner tended to gravitate towards people like today’s Michnik, and Szewczyk was a bit like that – he had a lot of knowledge but looked at certain things and formulated his thoughts a little differently. What kind of readings were discussed? We had some reading assignments for the seminars. I don’t remember exactly what Ingarden’s list was. The seminars were mainly with the assistant lecturers, so maybe Professor Półtawski would be able to tell you more about what the topics were. I remember that we certainly read Plato and we tried to discuss it. We went through a lot of classics. How did Ingarden conduct his lectures? He usually kept to the subject, but digressions occurred if there were any ques­tions or if he happened to remember something. Usually, however, it was a sys­tematic, monographic lecture, and questions and digressions did not diverge much from the main thought that he wanted to relay. We tried to take notes, some of it was recorded and transcribed and there are probably manuscripts published somewhere. Professor Dąmbska was the same way – she was also an old-fashioned professor, modest and very friendly to others, and at the same time possessing a strong ethical integrity of her profession. Can you tell us something more about Professor Dąmbska? She was very friendly to people; she was friends with many people. She was an attractive woman, although at the time I met her she was already a little peculiar. She wore masculine attire, with a tie, she had a distorted and slightly threatening look on her face. She was very inaccessible during lectures and at the university, but when you got to know her better, she was an extremely charming woman, very affectionate. Whenever I would visit her at home, she’d always have coffee and cookies for me. When she was sick, she never complained about her ailments, the situation, her illness. For her, the most important thing was that she had to give a lec­ture, pass something on to the students. It was at the top of her hierarchy of importance. She lived with her sister, very modestly, but tastefully. Professor Dąmbska came from earldom, from a very prominent family in Rudna. It was a very respectable family. Do you recall any famous polemics in Ingarden’s class? I can remember that many lively discussions involved Jaś Szewczyk, who’d usually speak up in lectures, but I can’t remember what the topics were. Only a general impression remains in my mind. In any case, they were interesting and vivid discussions. Gierulanka would also talk, but she did it more in order to better understand and get to the bottom of what Ingarden said. Did Ingarden have any favorites? It’s hard to say that he had favorites, but he could appreciate abilities. He sent Piotr Waszczenko on a scholarship. He also appreciated Jurek Perzanowski, who was a very intelligent man. It was evident that he had the ability to fish out tal­ented people, but I never noticed him distinguishing someone for reasons other than the those related to their capabilities. What speaking style did the Professor have? He spoke very factually and logically. You could understand his train of thought, but there were no special properties to speak of. He had a lot to say about the topics he was currently working on. He did not speak politically. And what was his attitude towards Marxist concepts? He did not speak about them politically, only pointed out substantive mistakes, but not in an aggressive or vicious way. He was more focused on his work and it absorbed most of his time. Politics probably affected him in various ways, but he didn’t manifest it in any way. Did he say anything about socialist realist art? I did not hear him do so, but Ingarden still had a lot of other lectures I didn’t attend, especially in aesthetics. There were also some seminars which have been described in Studia Estetyczne [Aesthetic Studies]. Various people from outside the university took part in those, but not me, so I don’t know if he ever talked about it. How about the famous Thursday evenings, organized by Ingarden at his place? I attended those private meetings, I don’t know if they were on a Thursday or another day of the week, but those were meetings for a small number of people. Maybe there were some other ones I did not take part in. I attended his seminar on ideas, organized for a small group of people from our year. Who else took part in it? Waszczenko, Perzanowski, Czarnota, maybe one or two others. There weren’t many people there. And did Dąmbska do something similar at home? Dąmbska held meetings at home on various topics, but mainly related to the master’s theses of her students. I also wrote my thesis under her, and we’d go to meet her individually. Perhpas there were some group meetings there, but I didn’t take part in them. Professor Dąmbska’s name days were another thing. I remem-ber that all the assistant professors, professors and even students were invited to those events. The tables were set in a few rooms; a lot of people would come. I heard a story of one of the students admitting to being a spy to Prof. In­garden. I don’t remember such an incident, but I know that there were many snitches, it was easy to tell. The stories about the Professor often involve his famous dog, do you remem-ber him? Yes, because he always walked him around Biskupi Square. Now there is a parking lot there, but earlier there was an alley where he would walk with this dog and where he would probably do a lot of thinking. Did he have a sense of humor? He did, but he did not let it show in lectures, he did not crack jokes, or anything. These were always serious matters that he talked about and discussed with us. Un­like Tischner, who would always throw in some of his famous highlanders’ jokes. Do you have any mementos of Ingarden? The supporting letters, but I would have to look for them. Do you remember any details about Ingarden’s interest in art and aesthetics? I was not interested in art because I thought it was not philosophy. It was only in my recent work that I became interested in art therapy as a form of a patient’s activity. Their entire activity is about accepting treatment doctor’s recommenda­tions. In art therapy, the opposite is true, the patient or mentee is active, and the one who leads them is an assistant who only guides and looks at how the talent is born.All activity is on the side of this individual who works creatively and tries to express their thoughts in the form of an image, verse, stories or something else. Would you call Ingarden your master? One could call him that, however it’d be hard to say that I am his disciple, be­cause I don’t really have an academic career and I had never continued his work. But it can be said that he was a master and a man who played a very important role in my life. And Professor Dąmbska is also one of those people who played an especially important role. So, you can say that apart from teaching they also raised their students? Most certainly, yes. Somehow, they instilled in us that if you do any scientific work, you should do it neatly, instead of just being focused on quantity – as it is required today. If you wanted a doctorate, you didn’t need a given amount, but the appropriate quality. There was encouragement to do a thorough job, methodology, and not to force anything, but instead to work in a thoughtful and critical manner. Do you think this scientific approach was a result of Dąmbska’s and Ingarden’s shared roots in the Lvov-Warsaw School? He was critical of this whole Lvov-Warsaw School and would express it at times, but the issues he had with it were substantive, not personal. The school and he preferred different things. He walked his own path. Józef Lipiec Biographical note Józef Lipiec (born 1942, Nowy Sącz) interests: ontology, axiology, social philosophy, ethics Born in 1942 in Nowy Sącz, where he graduated from the S. Konarski Primary School and M. Konopnicka High School. In 1959, at the age of seventeen, he be-gan studying philosophy at the Jagiellonian University in Krakow under Roman Ingarden. He also studied sociology at the Jagiellonian University. During his student days he was involved in many artistic, cultural and sporting activities. He belonged to Krakow’s experimental Theater 38, where he performed as an actor and director. He organized the Student Song Theater, founded the Y-6 Theater and the Sentence magazine. He was an instructor at the Krakow Region of the ZHP Polish Scouting and Guiding Association and a loyal supporter of the “Wisła Kraków” football team. He has continued many of his extra-scientific passions over the years, also as an academic teacher. He was a journalist in magazines such as: Polityka [Politics], Życie literackie [Literary Life], Student [Student], Wprost [Directly], Przekrój [Cross-section], Magazyn Olimpijski [Olympic Magazine]. He was the founder of the Malopolska Olympic Council and co-founder of the Polish Olympic Academy. Professional career In 1964-1980 he was associated with the AGH University of Science and Tech­nology in Krakow, where he lectured in philosophy and headed the Department of Philosophy at the Institute of Social Sciences. In 1980 he was awarded the ti­tle of professor of the Rzeszow University of Pedagogy, and in the years 1980-1986 he was the rector of the said institution. The institution was converted into Uni­versity of Rzeszów in 2001, which Lipiec, among others, had contributed to. In 1987 he returned to Krakow and started working at the Institute of Philosophy of the Jagiellonian University, at the Ontology Department, where he continued to work up until his retirement. For years he chaired the Scientific Council of the Institute of Philosophy, was a member of the Jagiellonian University Senate for two terms and chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee. From 1987 he was also employed at the Bronisław Czech University of Physical Education in Krakow, where he headed the Department of Philosophy and Doctoral Studies. He also worked periodically at the School of Management and Banking in Poznan, the State Higher Vocational School in Krosno, the WSB University of Banking in Chorzów and the Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski Krakow University. Scientific career and academic activity He was awarded a master’s degree in philosophy in 1964 and master’s degree in sociology in 1968. His doctoral dissertation entitled Podstawy ontologii systemów społecznych [Fundamentals of Ontology of Social Systems] was written under the supervision of Jan Leszczyński and defended at the Jagiellonian University in 1970, granting him a PhD in philosophy. He received his habilitation in 1978 at the Jagiellonian University based on the book Podstawy dialektycznej ontologii przedmiotu realnego [Basics of Dialectical Ontology of a Real Subject]. In 1984 he received the title of full professor from the President of the Republic of Poland for the entire legacy of his academic achievements in ontology, axiology, ethics, social philosophy and the philosophy of sport. He was a member of the board of the following medals and orders: Ecce Homo, Kalos Kagathos, the Award of the City of Krakow, and the Olympic Laurel. He belongs to Polish and foreign scientific societies and institutions, including: the Committee on Philosophical Sciences of the Polish Academy of Sciences, the Committee on Physical Cul­ture Sciences of the Polish Academy of Sciences, the Council of Science and Technology of the Southeastern Macroregion of the Polish Academy of Sciences (which he chairs). He is a member of scientific editorial boards of many maga­zines, including Dialogue and Universalism, Przegląd Filozoficzny [Philosophical Review], Studia Humanistyczne [Humanistic Studies]. He coorganized numer­ous national and international conferences and scientific congresses, including the 5th Congress of Polish Philosophy in Krakow in 1987. He is the author of many monographs and scientific, popular and scientific and journalistic articles, and editor of several collective scientific monographs. So far, Lipiec has been the supervisor of over 36 doctoral dissertations, over 200 master’s theses and a reviewer of many habilitation and doctoral disseratations and master’s theses. His students include philosophers, sociologists and physical education theo­rists. He has received a number of awards and distinctions: the Olympic Laurel Award twice, several ministerial awards for scientific activities, gold badges of the ZHP Polish Scouting and Guiding Association, the Polish Students’ Association, the Polish Teachers’ Union, the Society for the Fight against Disability. He was awarded the Officer’s and Knight’s Cross of the Order of the White Eagle, as well as the Medal of the Commission of National Education and the Gold Medal “For long-standing service”. In 2014 he was awarded the title of doctor honoris causa of the University of Physical Education in Krakow, and in 2017 of the University of Physical Education in Warsaw. Research The area of Lipiec’s scientific interests is very extensive and includes: ontology, axiology, social philosophy and ethics, but also art history and selected special­ ized issues, such as: philosophy of sports, ontology of love, phenomenology of wandering, and ethics in management. In his first published monograph entitled Podstawy ontologii społeczeństwa [Fundamentals of the Ontology of Society] Lipiec took up the difficult and com­plex problem of the existence of the object of the concept of ‘society’. The starting point of his considerations encompassed: knowledge of society in the works of many philosophers who had tackled this issue, including Plato and Aristotle; Roman Ingarden’s philosophy and the philosophy of the classics of Marxism. The work contains detailed analyses of the objective structure of society, and in the second part is devoted to existential problems, including various existential relationships occurring within societies. Lipiec’s scientific achievements also involve issues in the field of ontology and the epistemology of values. In the work W przestrzeni wartości [In the Space of Values], he raises fundamental issues and questions regarding values: what they are and how they are, how they exist, how they arise and take root in beings, what their relationships and bonds with human life are. A number of specific issues are discussed therein, including: the essence of values, constructive and destructive values, as well as the functions of values with regards to an individual, society and species. Many emphasize Lipiec’s exceptional scientific achievements in the fields of philosophy of sports and the philosophy of Olympism. Already his very first book devoted to this subject matter, i.e., Kalokagatia. Szkice z filozofii sportu [Kalokagathia. Sketches in the Philosophy of Sport] from 1988 was awarded the “Olympic Laurel” award. The work is based on the Platonic concept of bodily and spiritual balance, the unity of the virtues of reason, heart and body, and its underlying goal is to ask the question of the possibility of the existence of kalokagatia in the modern world. Lipiec presents the essence, structure and values of sport as a cultural phenomenon. At the same time, he is critical of the dehumanization processes and symptoms of crisis and degeneration observed in the Polish and international sports environment. Published several years later, Filozofia olimpizmu [The Phi­losophy of Olympism], is the first in Polish professional literature– and one of the first in the world – comprehensive and critical philosophical elaboration of the problem of Olympism, physical culture and sport. In this original study Lipiec considers and analyzes key ontological, epistemological and axiological problems regarding: sport, its essence, ethical and aesthetic values, its social di­mension and impact. The work asks questions about the subjectivity of an athlete, the dynamics of a sporting event, the antinomy of freedom and discipline, as well as the relationship of sport with ecology and architecture. Lipiec’s research interests also includes such unique issues as phenomenology of wandering and the philosophy of tourism, which relate to problems affecting contemporary culture – defined as nomadic culture, eternal travelers. His publications are often scientific works which retain outstanding literary value. Selected publications: •. Podstawy ontologii społeczeństwa [Fundamentals of the Ontology of Society]. Warszawa: PWN, 1972. •. Polityka i filozofia [Politics and Philosophy]. Krakow: Wydawnictwo Literac­kie, 1978. •. Ontologia świata realnego [Ontology of the Real World]. Warszawa: PWN, 1979. •. Kalokagatia. Szkice z filozofii sportu [Kalokagatia: Sketches in the Philosophy of Sport]. Warszawa and Krakow: PWN, 1988. • Ed. Ontologia wartości [Ontology of Values]. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwer­sytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, 1990. •. W przestrzeni wartości. Studia z ontologii wartości [In the Space of Values: Studies in the Ontology of Values]. Krakow: Harcerska Oficyna Wydawnicza, 1992. •. Wolność i podmiotowość człowieka [Human Freedom and Subjectivity]. Krakow, Fall, 1997. •. Filozofia olimpizmu [Philosophy of Olympism]. Warszawa: Polskie Wydawnic­two Sportowe Sprint, 1999. •. Świat wartości. Wprowadzenie do aksjologii [The World of Values: Introduction to Axiology]. Krakow: AWA, 2001. •. Koło etyczne [The Ethical Circle]. Krakow: Fall, 2005. •. Powrót do estetyki. Uroda świata – piękno sztuki [Return to Aesthetics: the Beauty of the World – the Beauty of Art]. Krakow: Fall, 2005. •. Pożegnanie z Olimpią [Farewell to Olimpia]. Krakow: Fall, 2007. •. Fenomenologia wędrówki. Studia z filozofii turystyki [Phenomenology of Wan­dering: Studies in the Philosophy of Tourism]. Krakow: Fall, 2010. •. Etiudy ontologiczne [Ontological Etudes]. Krakow: Fall, 2013. •. Sympozjon olimpijski [Olympic Symposium]. Krakow: Fall, 2014. •. Filozofia miłości [Philosophy of Love]. Krakow: Fall, 2016. •. Homo olimpicus, Krakow: Fall, 2017. Józef Lipiec “…I don’t understand much of this…” Interview conducted by Dominika Czakon and Rafał Kur How did your adventure with philosophy begin? First, I read Tatarkiewicz’s Historia filozofii [History of Philosophy], in the two-vol­ume (earlier) version. I was introduced to it by a Polish teacher, the supervisor of the literary club at my school. The high school program also included a year-long course in logic (based on Ajdukiewicz’s textbook). It was then that I, as a high school senior, in 1959, made the decision to study philosophy. I hesitated for a moment – do I choose the Catholic University of Lublin or the Jagiellonian University? Krakow was obvious for several reasons. The reputation of the Univer­sity, most of all. Secondly, as a citizen of Nowy Sącz I have been associated with Krakow for years (family traditions, regular visits to the theaters and museums, friendships throughout Scouts Movement). Finally, thirdly, because I already knew that philosophy at the Jagiellonian University was taught by a great thinker, Roman Ingarden. I was lucky enough to have met Professor Ingarden in person during the entrance exams. To be honest, those turned out to be rather unchallenging for me, thanks to the aforementioned introduction to logic which I was taught in high school. After the exam I calmly went to the cinema to watch Bergman’s Seventh Seal. However, afterwards I dropped by the Chair of Philosophy (at that time located on the ground floor of the house at Manifestu Lipcowego St. 13, today’s Piłsudskiego St.), where the examinations had just finished. One of the other students informed me that Professor Ingarden was asking about Mr. Lipiec. I decided to knock on the door to his office. He was talking to Professor Dąmbska. “Excuse me, Professor,” I said, “my name is Józef Lipiec, and I was told that I was not here when you asked about me”. “Ah yes,” said Ingarden, “I would like to inform you that you have passed the exam well and you may consider yourself admitted into university”. The ever-meticulous Prof. Dąmbska added: “Of course, you must also receive an official decision, sent by post”. “That’s just a formality,” said Ingarden, who was also the dean of the Faculty of Philosophy and History at that time, waving her off. This is how my university philosophical path began. What impression did Professor Ingarden make on you back then? I have to admit that from the first meeting I had a special attitude towards Ingarden. Certainly, many people, scholars of various disciplines, were under his intellectual influence and peculiar charm. Everyone probably carries their own image of a master within themselves. Mine back then consisted of a set of features that happened to be the most prominent and representative in the Professor’s per­sonality. They were also instrumental in forming the special sentiment I developed towards him, lasting invariably for many years, and possibly continuing to this day. My image of Ingarden was shaped not only in his lectures, addresses and seminars, but also by my thorough reading of his books, nota bene written artistically, with an extensive range of stylistic devices which was particularly to my liking. Our personal, bilateral talks with the Professor also had their own significance, espe­cially one long one, about the crisis of European thought (understood differently from Husserl’s thought). I regretted later that those unfinished meetings could not be transferred to the future, when my generation and I entered the “male age, age of defeat” and Ingarden was no longer among the living. To explain the subjectivity of the relationship, I will add that an unusual con­vergence of two facts also took place. Mainly, on June 22, 1970, at high noon, I defended my philosophical doctorate (my supervisor was Jan Leszczyński), and in the afternoon I participated, along with other students, in the funeral of Professor Ingarden in Rakowice. I was reminded years later that, while thanking the com­mittees and guests of the doctoral defense, I called the assembly hall of Collegium Novum to rise from their seats and honor his memory with a minute of silence. What did the famous lectures of Professor Ingarden look like? Great, amazing, fascinating. I don’t think I missed any. They were prepared very carefully and always assembled on hand-written stacks of paper (sitting behind the first desk by the window I could see them well). He used them sporadically, only for quotations. The lectures themselves were conducted live, from memory, in a different rhythm and in a different poetic convention than that prevailing in published treatises. The lectures were conceptually precise, but they were always delivered freely, with eloquence, abundant in examples, and often anecdotes (subtle points and witty remarks usually accompanied by the characteristic squinting of eyes under the bushy, gray eyebrows). Whatever Ingarden was lecturing in – the history of modern philosophy, phenomenology, ethics and aesthetics – he would also always present his own attitude to every matter, to every project of his predecessors and contemporaries. He wouldn’t try to settle the controversy directly and ad hoc, rather pointing to the trouble­some consequences of certain solutions, but also showing possible ways out of the labyrinths of theoretical difficulties. He had his favorite problem sequences; however he’d try to avoid second-hand subject matter, admitting his predilections or insufficient competence with courage (as he did with Hegel and his followers for example, including Marx). His seminars, which took the form of a democratic debate on texts, generally with the participation of speakers with different levels of preparation, were also fascinating. The seminars gathered everyone from first-year students to professors. Ingarden knew how to listen, paying attention to immature and naive proposals just the same as any others, in each case encouraging the search for more answers with his kindness. The method of comparing the multilingual versions of the discussed works was extremely useful (though Ingarden seemed to assume that we all spoke five languages, not to mention Latin and Greek). It must be remem­bered that he was a scholar of broad horizons, simultaneously an expert on the latest trends in physics and a connoisseur of fine arts. At the same time, he was an erudite and a master of eidetic analyses, combining the vastness of research perspectives with the depth of essentialist investigations. He was an expert in philosophy, in the best, university sense of the word. He was, first and foremost, an authentic philosopher himself, one of very few in his contemporary world (though not fully appreciated by this world). I belonged to the third after the war, the youngest generation of his students. The first was dominated by women: Danuta Gierulanka, Maria Gołaszewska and Anna Teresa Tymieniecka. Jerzy Gałecki and Jan Leszczyński (who was to take over his position) were also among his early disciples. The group includes Freiburg professor Guido Kuenga who learned Polish to listen to Ingarden’s lectures in Krakow (I met this Swiss philosopher in the 1970s). The second generation was represented by Andrzej Półtawski and Janina Makota (later also Władysław Stróżewski, who came from Lublin). The third generation was those who graduated the philosophical studies renewed after October 1956, though, all in all, it barely contained four years. Year by year; Szewczyk’s and Węgrzecki’s year, then the year of Zgoda, Aleksandrowicz and Piasecka, then my year (with Jan Vetulani, Woleński, Wroński and Bednarski), and finally the last of the ‘Ingarden’ years – the year of Perzanowski, Czarnota and Waszczenka. Others joined along the way, including Józef Tischner, Halina Poświatowska and some employees of the Chair of Philosophy of Nature (Hempoliński and Pawlica). To name a few, of course. After Ingarden’s retirement, the philosophical center moved to the meetings of the Polish Philosophical Society (in the same lecture hall). Ingarden was, above all, a very solid and committed organizer, both in the academic life and in the didactic process, reconstructed with difficulty after a few years’ break. He also let himself be known as a warm-hearted youth guardian. My year was lucky to experience it directly, because he was the official supervisor of our group throughout my entire studies. Among other things, he was the one to advise me in my issues regarding taking up another major (mathematics, then art history and sociology). Memory can be selective, so years later, only special events, especially the mood surrounding them remains alive in it. In the second year, I was writ­ing an end-of-year work on the philosophy of language. The basis for it was a comparison of the concept of meaning in the Lvov-Warsaw school (especially in Ajdukiewicz’s work) and Ingarden’s theory, outlined in O dziele literackim [On Literary Works]. When turning in the manuscript, I commented: “My analysis proves clearly that you, Professor, have prevailed in this duel”. Ingarden sympathetically tolerated my contemporary style of conversation of a student with a professor. The conversation about my master’s thesis project was grounds for much similar amusement. “I would like to write about the language and structure of film” – I started boldly – “of course, starting with your theory of language and the work of art in general. But the regulations of our studies state that the dissertation has to be a discussion of one of the classics of philosophy. Do you, Professor, fit in this category?”. Ingarden laughed widely: “Everyone knows which classics the creators of these regulations had in mind. You can write about me with no holding back!”. I wrote this thesis, albeit formally under Jan Leszczyński, because Ingarden was not even allowed to finish guiding several master’s dissertations started under his supervision. When did Professor Ingarden leave the Institute? In the autumn of 1963, just when I started my last year of graduate school.To be exact, the Institute of Philosophy hadn’t been established yet, the Association of Philosophical Chairs was there instead. Ingarden managed it (as well as the Chair of Philosophy). A new structure, an institute, was being built for two or three years. It was for this purpose that Professor Legowicz was invited from the capital, but it was Zdzisław Augustynek who became the first director. In addition to Ingarden, the ones who left at the time included Professor Dąmbska, Gromska and Gierulanka and a group of younger employees. A new team emerged, also an interesting one, with Z. Kuderowicz, M. Hempoliński, J. Pawlica, B. Łagowski, E. Paczkowska and Z. Piątek. From the old Chairs only logicians (with K. Pasen­kiewicz, S. Surma and E. Żarnecka-Biały) and J. Leszczyński, M. Gołaszewska and W. Stróżewski remained. Most of Ingarden’s late students dispersed through various academic centers. Węgrzecki and Zgoda founded philosophy at the Academy of Economics. I found a haven at the AGH University of Science and Technology (where I tried to gather students from the subsequent years, who’d later return in glory to the walls of the Alma Mater). Who do you particularly remember from Ingarden’s classes? I’ve already mentioned many names. You always remember those in your own year the most. One special place, though, would belong to Janek Vetulani, then already an assistant lecturer at the Faculty of Law, brother of Jerzy, and son of Adam, an excellent expert on canon law. A year after graduation, we met at Janek’s funeral. He died in an accident in the waters of the Dunajec. Many inter­esting characters graduated philosophy around that time, for example Krzysztof Zanussi, Helmut Kajzar, the poets Halina Poświatowska and Beata Szymańska, or Jacek Bednarski, the Polish chess champion who had some great games with Bobby Fischer. We co-created Alma Radio and Teatr Piosenki [Theater of Song] with Wojtek Hobgarski, and the Y-6 Theater with Janek Jezia. I can’t forget the expressive figures of Jaś Sarna, Marysia and Zdzich Kowalski, Ewa Sowa and, of course, the taciturn and ever accurate Andrzej Wroński. I remember the great seminar speeches of Jan Szewczyk and Joanna Piasecka (née Turowiczówna). Stefan Szuman, Antoni Kępiński, and later Józek Tischner also appeared from time to time. I was later honored to attend a private seminar devoted to the Controversy over the Existence of the World (composed of: Stróżewski, Tischner, Szewczyk and myself). What were Ingarden’s exams like? To be honest, they were very varied, as always confirmed by my classmates. The exams were, of course, oral, far from routine interviews, held in the spirit of a conversation dependent not only on the subject matter, but also on specific circumstances, especially personal. I’ll remember two such exams until the day I die. One in ethics, in preparations for which, apart from my own notes, I also used full recordings of the classes, which were the basis for Professor’s later book. It was by courtesy of Półtawski, PhD, who diligently set up the tape recorder at each lecture. My exam, though passed early, lasted for nearly two hours. The first, preliminary questions about the structure of the lectures throughout the year were followed by a regular, lively discussion. I even had the impression that Professor talked more than I did, even though I was the examinee. Ingarden apologized to us that we had to finish the debate and gave me a very good grade. Another exam which took an unusual course was in the history of modern philosophy, held in the Professor’s apartment at Biskupi Square. I took it together with Wojtek Hobgarski, or rather, I took it and and Wojtek took it upon himself to play with Dżok, Ingarden’s beloved dog. After an hour or two, he wrote down my grade in my student record book, then turned to Hobgarski, who had been silent so far: “You did not say much, but I think that Dżok aptly sensed that you were also very well prepared”. And he gave him the highest grade – “5” – which Wojtek was extremely proud of. Do you remember, perhaps, if Dżokuś often accompanied Professor Ingarden? He sometimes took the dog to the office with him, but he never brought him to the lectures. I know, however, that Professor liked to take walks around Kra­kow with him. And, of course, he always took him along on vacation, to the mountains. Did Professor Ingarden allow himself to hold free discussions with the students? Lots of situations like that took place, although probably never as part of orga­nized, official meetings. The initiatives were spontaneous, although they usu­ ally touched upon philosophical issues, and rarely worldview or political ones. However, Professor invited selected students to his place, they went to visit him individually or in a group. The relationship he had with his former students and associates (Gierulanka and Półtawski, in particular) had an entirely different set of rules, but I also feel that he was increasingly interested in the development of the younger generations. In hindsight, I am convinced that in the last decade of his life he was instinctively looking for signs of his own future philosophical school. With a dose of good-natured contrariness, one could give it the name of “Lvov-Krakow School”. Would Ingarden easily get upset with the students? With the students? Never. Although he would probably have reasons, for exam­ple the increased level of insubordination in the timely taking of exams or the ubiquitous tardiness with master’s theses. Ingarden was a typical Sanguine, with a keen temperament and vivid reactions. If I remember any symptoms of discon­tent from him, they were directed towards the misgivings of public transport or the awkwardness of university services. However, those instances are not even worth mentioning. Ingarden was the very image of a composed, distinguished gentleman (always in a tie, though more often with a beret than a hat). He did not, however, have anything to do with a stoic. Quite the contrary, he had a lively nature and swiftly reacted to any new circumstances he’d find himself in. If I had a chance to point out one feature, I’d say that he was the master of irony. Including that directed at himself. His famous catchphrase “I don’t understand much of this” (appearing where he understood the problem better than anyone else) was a testimony to a certain control he had over his emotions. He had the sense and need for situational restraint. Was it his life experience – the interwar period, the occupation and the post-war years – that affected him this way? It was probably the way it was in the first half of the 1950s. If they made it impossible for you to continue your university work, grit your teeth, write a new work, or translate Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. That’s how he reacted at the time. With a sense of independence and in peace with himself, he continued his mission even seven years into his retirement. And who was Ingarden as a philosopher? He was a philosopher, above all, which distinguished him from many historians, critics and commentators of philosophy who, out of necessity, were, in majority, among academic teachers. He could not, of course, fail to discuss other’s views – in his case those of Husserl, Scheler and Bergson and especially the entirety of the Cartesian and Kantian tradition. However, he considered it his philosophical responsibility to develop and announce his own position, a realistic one. In his relationship with Husserl, he repeated the sequence of Plato-Aristotle. With genuine courage, he used the argument of the third mode of existence. He discovered that is the intentionality (the world depicted in art), in his polemic with idealism. He had an unwavering faith in the causative power of philosophy, rejecting and even somewhat disregarding the skeptical attitude to it (present also in the Polish environment). He decided that the philosophical mind guided by the creative imperative can deal with the most difficult problems, provided that the issues are properly presented, and the work on the answer will be deeply eidetic and responsible for its word. Distinguishing between the two attitudes, he used to say that he was an expert on philosophy and its historian from time to time (mainly in university didactics), but he regarded himself a philosopher – independent and creative. Another feature of Ingarden’s philosophical mindset was his versatility, which ultimately led him to build a system. As the author of the Controversy he was undoubtedly an ontologist. He firmly expressed his epistemological position. He was an axiologist, in particular an ethicist and aesthetician. He drew an anthropological concept in the Książeczka o człowieku [Little Book About Man]. He was an original philosopher of language. If any­thing could be regarded as missing from his system, it could only be that he did not write his own Republic, Politics or Treaty of Perpetual Peace. The times he happened to live in would not, however, incline anyone to write hurried prescriptions. Philosophy had also become sort of a safe haven for him. Also, one couldn’t really do everything that is important and necessary, even given the longest of lives. Ingarden had a particular manner of narration, to me it felt similar to the style of Franz Kafka (especially from The Castle). Research in essentialism, of which he was a master, is a series of two interwoven threads. One involves reaching what is possible and indubitable, and other is the rejection, the experience of nega­tivity (as impossibility and non-fulfillment). This type of work requires patience and extraordinary discipline in maintaining intensity in extensive, difficult and arduous analyses. Many philosophers write good short stories, while Ingarden was the creator of great, multithreaded philosophical epics. Two items deserve special attention in this regard: On Literary Works and the, in fact, unfinished Controversy over the Existence of the World. Here comes another analogy with the poetics of Kafka. You never know how the story will end. Would the next unrecorded volumes of the Controversy have brought about some vital transfor­mation of the theory (especially with the modification of some assumptions)? It is difficult to determine. Ingarden had one personal reference system, namely the phenomenology of Husserl, entering a permanent, direct and indirect polemic with his teacher. Gradually, his contacts with the representatives of the Lvov-Warsaw School became increasingly important. After all, it was Twardowski who would hire him to work in Lviv. He maintained long-term, friendly relations with most of his students. Tatarkiewicz, Czeżowski, and Ajdukiewicz were often invited to his lectures in Krakow (as well as regularly entrusted with reviews of the doctoral theses he supervised). What was Ingarden’s activity in various associations? I have secondhand knowledge about his earlier and later foreign contacts, but I also know of them from numerous mentions by the professor himself, who would recall warm relations with the German interwar physicists, as well as the famous Prague convention where Smoluchowski and Einstein met (“I was there too” – Ingarden would add, humbly). Directly, however, I observed his extraordinary activity in the Polish Philosophical Society. It was the second meeting place, aside from the University, also inclusive of a slightly different audience from various circles. For many years, Ingarden chaired the Krakow Branch of the PPS. The room would always be full during his lectures, which had a great impact on the professor’s well-being. Though rarely mentioned, In­garden had excellent relations with publishers, needless to say, operating under state supervision at the time. The PWN [Polish Scientific Publishers], headed by Danuta Petschowa, released a well-edited, multi-volume magnum opus of Professor Ingarden. Wydawnictwo Literackie [Literary Publishing] also didn’t hesitate to put out the Little Book About Man. Do you recognize Ingarden as your master? I did not, and still do not possess, I think, the nature of a ‘disciple’ necessary for the master-disciple relationship. In the simplest, colloquial sense, however, I would, of course, answer affirmatively. Yes, Ingarden has long been my ref­erence system, both in ontological and later axiological works. Certainly, the main and perhaps even the only one. It is not about the tendency to cultivate identical solutions – both in general and in detail (for example with regards to the so-called ‘existential moments’, or the ideal way of existence). It is about the most principle issue, namely the right and duty of independent philosophical work. One of Ingarden’s critical remark always remains on my mind: “Ladies and gentlemen, neo-positivists have read so much that they have no time left to think”. It is therefore a matter of the workshop, of healthy proportions: read, but when the time to think comes – close the books. When it comes to the principle then, I stand firmly by Ingarden. The re-examination of Husserl-In­garden’s relationship in the context of a dispute between idealism and realism reveals another aspect of the question. Some of the Krakow professor’s nominal students reported a desire for a return to Husserl. I am one of the followers of Ingarden’s thought. Is that enough to regard him as my ‘master’? The answer must be decided by the coming generations. Janina Makota Biographical note Janina Makota (July 5, 1921 Bolechów [currently Ukraine] – April 12, 2010, Krakow) interests: the history of philosophy, axiology, aesthetics, theory of art, poetry In 1944 she moved from Ukraine to Krakow, where she took up studies in two fields at the Jagiellonian University: English Philology, which she graduated in 1950 (the title of her master’s thesis: An Aesthetic Investigation of William Blake’s Poetry and Painting) and philosophy, which she graduated in 1952, obtaining a master’s degree in both cases. Professional career During her studies, in 1949-1951, she received a ministerial scholarship, allow­ing her to work at the Jagiellonian Library. After its completion, due to the the lack of full-time jobs in the Library, she went to work at the Documentation Center of the Foundry Institute, where she worked for the next seven years, until 1958. In the same year she received the position of a senior assistant lecturer at the Chair of the History of Philosophy, thanks to the recommendation and influence of Professor Izydora Dąmbska, who headed the Chair. In an opinion drafted in June 1958 and addressed to the Council of the Faculty of Philosophy and History, Professor Dąmbska wrote about the need for employment of an “support scientific force”: “Ms. Janina Makota studied under the supervision of Professor Roman Ingarden and she became known as a talented and highly conscientious person”. This was not the only case of support given to Makota by Professor Dąmbska. In the years 1963-1964 she repeatedly spoke about the assistant lecturer in her Chair, giving her a number of positive recommendations. At the time, a number of disputes took place between the Faculty Council and the University Qualification Committee on the possibility of further employ­ment of employees from philosophical chairs. It is worthwhile to add here that another individual actively involved in the case was Roman Ingarden who clearly stated in his opinion that Makota, PhD, is a good lecturer who “conscientiously performs the duties of her assistant position, and is a talented scholar”. The Faculty Council was usually the losing party in the disputes, as was the case with Dąmbska, Ingarden, Andrzej Półtawski or Jan Szewczyk, and the same outcome occurred in Makota’s case. The first secretary of the Fundamental Party Organization at the Faculty in his note from March 10, 1964 resolved the dis­pute to the detriment of the latter, saying: “Janina Makota, PhD, should not be appointed as an assistant professor due to the clearly idealistic direction of her philosophical interests. In addition, due to the planned reorganization of the Chair of the History of Philosophy Makota does not fit into the planned com-position of the Chair”. The unequivocally negative party opinion was an ex­pression of disregard for didactic commitment, scientific achievements, and the philosophical and aesthetic interests continuously developed by Makota. She received a one-year extension of her employment contract, with a simultaneous demotion from the position of assistant lecturer to senior lecturer. In October 1965, by decision of the rector, she was transferred to work in the Jagiellonian Library, a job she continued until her retirement in 1984. She worked in the Subject Catalog Department of the Library, obtaining all subsequent professional degrees, including that of a senior certified curator, in the years 1969-1976. Academic career Working outside the university in the 1950s and then leaving it did not pre­vent her from maintaining constant contact with philosophy and philosophical academic environment. Throughout her life she developed and deepened her knowledge, the testimony to which was her participation in numerous meet­ings of the Aesthetic Section of the Polish Philosophical Society and scientific conferences. In 1962 she defended her doctoral dissertation, written under Ingarden’s supervision: Classification of Fine Arts and Mutual Relations Between Them (Władysław Tatarkiewicz was one of her reviewers). Two years later, the dissertation appeared in book form under a slightly changed title – Classification of Fine Arts. From Research on Contemporary Aesthetics. The work received positive assessments of reviewers earlier, but Ingarden’s uttermost appreciation of it was his foreword to the publication, wherein he described the task of the classification of fine arts taken up by his PhD student on the one hand as a continuation of views of ancient philosophers, and on the other as a valuable contribution to contemporary and imperfect classifications. In his opinion he emphasized the advantages of a clear and transparent approach to the issue, as well as the validity of critical discussions regarding foreign research. Academic organizations. Honors Makota belonged to the Polish Aesthetic Society and the Polish Philosophi­cal Society. She was also a member of the Research Council of the quarterly journal Estetyka i Krytyka [Aesthetics and Criticism]. She was awarded the Knight’s Cross of the Order of Polonia Restituta and the Gold Cross of Merit. Research Makota presented critically views of French and Anglo-Saxon philosophers of art, such as: Etienne Souriau, Thomas Munro, Charles Lalo, Mikel Dufrenne, Susane Langer and Etienne Gilson. In their context, she proposed her own schematic divisions of works of art based on the type of entity foundation present, the degree of ‘immersion’ into the material foundation, the layering of construction. The author also analyzed and compared works of art based on their structure and distinction into form and matter within the work which do not lead to a schematic division. The classifications included in the book are a model of conscientiousness and research discipline, a model of analytical thinking and striving for clarity and adequacy of language which will allow to capture an object as difficult and elusive as a work of art. Makota was one of the few researchers who devoted special attention to phe­nomenological thought in its ontological, epistemological and aesthetic aspect. In these contexts, she interpreted Edmund Husserl, Ingarden, Max Scheler and Edith Stein, and critically juxtaposed their thoughts. She also adopted the views of contemporary German axiologists into Polish philosophy, among others those of Nikolai Hartmann and Hugo Münsterberg. She translated fragments of their works into Polish and subjected them to separate elaborations. As part of this research she dealt with aesthetic values (work of art, creativity) and ethical values (humbleness, justice, faithfulness) and their relations, as well as aesthetic qualities (fancifulness, grotesque, naivety). All these works were characterized by extraordinary care for the linguistic, formal and substantive aspects. This workshop approach became close to her heart in the course of her study under Ingarden and she remained faithful to it until the last days of her research activity. Selected publications Dr. Makota published two books, several translations, and several dozen chapters and papers in Polish and English, which appeared in Aesthetics and Criticism, Kwartalnik Filozoficzny [Philosophical Quarterly] and post-conference materials. One cannot overlook her literary interests, both research and creative ones. She published several volumes of poetry. • O klasyfikacji sztuk pięknych. Z badań nad estetyką współczesną [Classification of Fine Arts. From Research on Contemporary Aesthetic]. Krakow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1964. • Chwila wytchnienia. Wybór wierszy [A Moment of Respite: Selection of Poems]. Krakow: Oficyna Literacka, 1996. • W kręgu wartości. Zagadnienia estetyki, etyki i filozofii człowieka [In the Circle of Values: Issues in Aesthetics, Ethics and Human Philosophy]. Krakow: cop. Janina Makota, 1999. • Zimowy świt. Wybór wierszy [Winter Dawn: Selection of Poems]. Krakow: Fall, 2003. • Ikebana. Wybór wierszy [Ikebana: Selection of Poems]. Krakow: Fall, 2005. Janina Makota “…studies are not a military drill…” The interview was conducted by Leszek Sosnowski The Professor belonged to… I’m not a professor; gentlemen, you are stubborn, namely you and Mr. Piotr Mróz and Mr. Andrzej Nowak, and I finished my academic career with a PhD degree, af­ter having defended my doctoral thesis written under Roman Ingarden’s supervision. I know all of that, but you also know that the title of professor used by me and my colleagues is an expression of our great respect for you. Yes, yes, I do not know what I ever did to deserve it, but I’ll let it be. You, gen­tlemen, are very stubborn. Let’s get back to Ingarden. The Professor belonged to the closest group of Ingarden’s students first, and of his assistant lecturers later. What would be your first opinion about your supervisor? I owe almost everything I know about philosophy to Professor Ingarden. Of course, I heard something about philosophy before enrolling in university: just enough to have become interested in it. But it was Ingarden’s lectures that made me aware of the importance of particular issues and our cognitive abilities. In their course I was also handed a method of research, and phenomenology striving to know the essence of things suits me very well. I value the constant reference to reality in Ingarden. He is a philosopher who never falls into barren speculation and warns his students against it. And the great edifice of ontology built by the Master is an invaluable tool for research. Whenever I later read the works of various philosophers, I could not resist the attempt to approach their views in the framework of possibilities drawn from Ingarden’s ontology. It is widely regarded that Ingarden had the temper of a systematic philosopher, that he was a mind with great analytic insight and that he was not a historian of philosophy. This is partially true. When it comes to looking at the entire history of philosophy, Ingarden emphasized the necessity of its problematic recognition. He wanted to see a description of the development of individual problems in the history of philosophy, not a fragmented report on particular philosophers, of greater or less importance. I remember that he recommended, for example, Wilhelm Windel­band1 as a historian of philosophy. Ingarden is not a philosopher in a narrow sense, limited to ontology. Yes, of course, he also dealt with other philosophical disciplines: epistemology, ethics, aesthetics. He made an important individual contribution to each of them. I must add here separately that I am grateful to Ingarden for all his aesthetics, which, as a matter of fact, gained the widest recognition, also outside the circle of philosophers. Do you remember Ingarden’s lectures, the way they were conducted, the degree of difficulty? Was he able to interest students in them or were they an arduous duty, an academic obligation? Ingarden’s lectures were very compelling, for several different reasons. Of course, because of their content, which was always very interesting, well prepared. But that wasn’t the only reason. The delivery was equally interesting. Ingarden had a nice, masculine timbre of voice, and his speeches were characterized by a dis­tinctive sentence melody. There was nothing artificial about it, only a natural way of speaking of a man who has something to say and wants to convey it to his listeners. What he said was not a memorized speech, but an expressive description of the subject. The master vividly evoked the presented fragment or aspect of reality in his and our imagination. During the lecture, did he address the audience directly or rather talk into space, facing the topic he presented, the issue one-on-one? He addressed the students directly, even claimed that he must see the reactions of his listeners, read from their faces, and that he would not be able to lecture if the light went out by accident (at such a time of day when this is necessary). The lively 1 Wilhelm Windelband (1848-1915), German philosopher, neo-Kantian, founder of the Baden School. nature of the lecture drew us in and facilitated listening. I never had any difficulty in maintaining concentration or understanding the content of the lecture. Philosophy is a highly abstract field, was it not the case that after some time the focus had to lessen and the subject matter of the lecture eluded understanding? This was not the case with Ingarden. To avoid abstract arguments when it was possible, Ingarden was using specific examples. One of them was a red sphere, on the example of which he showed that we perceive the uniformly red color of its surface through the appearances covering many shades of pink, white and red, depending on its exposure, which he defined by white light reflections, etc. Yes, this example can be found is in his analyses of sense data. Do you re­member any other examples analyzed in the lectures? Of course, this was Ingarden’s method of visualizing the problem. Another example given by Ingarden was the old umbrella of a professor, or perhaps the umbrella of an old professor (of course fictional). There was always something going on with this umbrella, the handle would break, the wires would get bent, the material would rip, etc. The professor (in the example) is very afraid of his wife, so he always secretly commissions further repairs. In the end it turns out that everything had been replaced. Ingarden then asked the question: is this still the same umbrella? Obviously, the purpose of this thought experiment was philosophically important and required us to consider the problem of the identity of the object or the subject. In this case, of course, you had to relate the funny umbrella to the identity of a person in time. Such examples of everyday and empirical nature facilitated the understanding and assimilation of the lecture’s content. Was it Ingarden’s habit, meaning he would often use this tool, or did he only occasionally refer to them? It was definitely a permanent and important element of his teaching methods, both in lectures and in seminars. Ingarden emphasized the necessity of con­stantly reverting to reality, in contrast to philosophers who’d restrict themselves to studying the meaning of concepts. Let me give you this example, which I remember from Ingarden’s recollections. When he went to the United States at the invitation of the university centers there, one of the hosts asked him whether the concept of time would be the subject of his considerations. The professor corrected unambiguously by answering: we will talk about time itself, not about the concept of time. By the way, I will add a bit of trivia here that says something important about Ingarden. The master chose a trip by ship to the United States because his spouse was afraid to fly by plane, which proves his empathy and gentleness2. This is an interesting feature of Ingarden’s didactics, however his books, and especially the Controversy over the Existence of the World, clearly show how thoroughly he was able to analyze a problem. Such work required a huge mind capacity, great concentration skills, something that he himself called intuitive insight. I imagine that in such moments he would “sink into him­self”, completely cutting himself off from the world. When it was necessary to analyze concepts, especially their entire classes, accumu­lated over the course of the history of philosophy, he did so perfectly. Example: he captured as many as nine pairs of form and matter concepts, from which he adopted one pair (in the sense of formal ontology) to stick to throughout his philosophy (form – what is radically non-quantitative, matter – what is qualita­tive as filling the form). The master emphasized the need to obtain an intuitive insight into the object at every stage of its research. Therefore, he did not believe in logistical operations carried out on mere symbols. Would you please talk about the language requirements for the students? University rumor has it that he expected and encouraged students to learn languages important to philosophy. He not only encouraged, but even demanded that students read philosophers’ works in their original languages, especially emphasizing the necessary knowl­ 2 Ingarden was in the United States from September 1959 to January 1960, giving lectures at several major university centers. edge of German. He also often invoked important terms and concepts from that language in his university classes. He mentioned that the condition for getting into the seminar with Professor Kazimierz Twardowski in Lviv at the university there was knowledge of five foreign languages: German, French, English, Greek and Latin. He knew French and English, of course, although not as well as German. That is understandable, he got to know that language while studying with Edmund Husserl in Göttingen and Freiburg (in Breisgau). It would happen quite often in class, whether in lectures or seminars, that he’d expect the student speaking in the discussion to use the correct term in a foreign language, most often in German, but sometimes also in English. Is it for this reason – forgive the humorous remark –that you went back to studying French in order to meet Ingarden’s requirements? It would be an exaggeration if I agreed with you. I have been learning French, as it is said, “for myself” for some time now, but this was not learning from the basics. I don’t intend on going to France and I don’t need that type of command of the language. I went back to this language because I had neglected it, and while writing my PhD I had to use it intensively. But you probably know that, since I presented you with a copy of a book based on that thesis. Yes, thank you for the book and your beautiful dedication. Since the book was mentioned, I’d like to refer to the introduction that Ingarden wrote. Wasn’t this a sign of great appreciation for the arguments presented in the book – let me mention the title – Klasyfikacja sztuk pięknych [Classification of Fine Arts]? Probably, since as my supervisor, he had positively assessed the dissertation and allowed its defense. I’m forced to ask a direct question here: did Ingarden write introductions to the books of other doctors? In other words, was it his habit or an exception? As far as I know, this happened rarely. I am unaware of any other such case. Hence this was an expression of his high regard for the book. I was very proud of it. I still am. Enough on the topic. Last question about the introduction. Ingarden expressly praises your work in the final paragraph of his preface. However, I will refer to an earlier fragment. He writes in it that the authors of contemporary classifications have failed to recognize the structure of the works of art they speak about in a sufficiently deep manner. Therefrom I infer that you had possessed this knowledge. This was probably true to some extent. One of the chapters of the book was devoted to the construction of particular types of works of art. But I think that equally important, and perhaps even more important for the entire analysis, was the critical presentation of the views of several French and American aestheticians. Ingarden had, for example, huge objections to Dufrenne’s theory; he believed that the French aesthetician did not understand or misunderstood his theory of the layered structure of works of art. The case was similar with the aesthetic experience. Ingarden was upset that western aestheticians would write erroneously about issues that he had already analyzed and solved. And when they did not misrepresent his thought, they would often use his ideas and concepts without indicating their source of origin. Do you mean the instance of Warren and Wellek, the two American theo­reticians of literature? Of course.This was a well-known case at the time, though it took place much earlier. But from what I can remember, Ingarden had a good relationship with Wellek later. I do not know the details, but he visited the United States and gave lectures at several local universities. You graduated with a Master’s degree in English philology from the Jagiello­nian University. Did you learn French at that time? No, German. Do you remember any interesting examples from Ingarden’s lectures in the philosophy of language? Lectures on language covered many issues. One of the most interesting ones was the role of human experience in creating names. In the Polish word wąż [Eng. snake], the animal has been preserved as something narrow [Pol. wąski]; in contrast, the Latin word serpens reflects the writhing movement of the ser­pent. This is related to the difficulty of translating texts, especially poetry, in which the way the words sound, and not only their meaning plays a huge role. Example: the word Tod in German has the deep and serious vowel o. The Polish equivalent śmierć [Eng. death] reveals nothing similar in its sound layer. And here the Professor would recite the poem by R. M. Rilke, which I remembered: Der Tod ist groß. Wir sind die Seinen lachenden Munds. Wenn wir uns mitten im Leben meinen, wagt er zu weinen mitten in uns. What a fascinating topic it would be: to study the names of the same subjects in different languages as reflective of how different nations experience reality. And the same poem in W. Arndt’s translation: Death is great. We are in his keep Laughing and whole. When we feel deep In life, he dares weep Deep in our soul3. How did Ingarden treat his students, or rather how did he work with them? Ingarden assigned different readings to every student. He claimed that studies are not a military drill where everyone has to learn the same. He approached the 3 Walter Arndt, The Best of Rilke: 72 Form-true Verse Translations with Facing Originals, Commentary, and Compact Biography (Hanover: Published for Dartmouth College by University Press of New England, 1989), 53. Prof. Makota originally quoted Ingarden’s own translation here. students’ statements at the seminar or at meetings of the Aesthetics Section of the PPS in a similarly individual way. He was an attentive listener, patient and understanding; he helped students formulate their thoughts, and even when they were not quite clear, he then helped make them more precise by striving to get to the bottom to the student’s intentions. There were known cases of dedication bordering on sacrifice on his part, especially when it came to writing finals, master’s or doctoral dissertations. How did Ingarden treat his teaching duties? The Professor was very conscientious; he would never skip a lecture without a major reason. Classes were always held on Saturday (in those times no one would even dream of a free Saturday). This one time, the Professor was return­ing from Warsaw on the night train and he came to the lecture in the morning. Someone asked him if he didn’t feel tired. The professor briskly replied: “I’m old, so I no longer get tired”. Your story reveals another Professor Ingarden’s features: a sense of humor. What was it like in his case? His sense of humor regularly made itself known. One day two students (of psy­chology, I think) did not come to the seminar. The Professor was upset. Someone said they had to go somewhere out of the city. The Professor replied: “I would like to do that myself!”. Someone added: “But they went to Kobierzyn [a well-known hospital for the mentally ill – tr. note]” (most probably some psychiatry-related event was taking place there). These words caught the Professor off guard, he laughed and said: “Oh no, I do not want to go there after all!”. The students would come to him with requests, in which case, whenever he could and wanted to do so, he would vigorously answer: “Yes sir!”. Did Ingarden have any stories from his studies in Germany? I remember one such story. Once, he was in Germany, where in a conversation with a local professor, I am not sure who, but perhaps it was Müller, he men­tioned a professor of psychology from Krakow, Władysław Heinrich. At which Müller exclaimed, “What, Heinrich is still alive?”. After returning to the country, Ingarden talked to Professor Heinrich and mentioned that he had seen Müller in Germany, to which Heinrich burst out: “What, Müller is still alive?”. And Husserl? Did he not mention the most important figure in his philosophical development? From the stories of Professor Ingarden, as well as from what we ourselves read from Husserl’s works, it became clear to us that Husserl and Ingarden were two completely different personalities. Ingarden was very systematic and accurate, pedantic, striving towards the goal he’d set for himself through in-depth analyses. Husserl, on the other hand, was always starting over, he had considerable difficulty in editing his works. It is known that his assistant, Edith Stein, helped him with that. Ingarden took over certain things from Husserl, for example, the phenom­enological method, interest in researching consciousness, etc. but – keeping his feet on the ground – he did not succumb to the illusion of idealism, a view that was ultimately Husserl’s last word. This turned out to be a crucial difference in their views. Ingarden was a realist, I have no doubt about it. Did he have any favorite philosophers, or those whose contribution to phi­losophy he particularly valued? He had his philosophical likes and dislikes. He valued Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, Brentano and of course his master Husserl, even if he did not succumb to him in the idealism vs realism dispute. He gave lectures or seminars on them, but he also referred to them on various occasions, such as the meetings of the Aesthetic Section. But he also had his philosophical dislikes, although it was more about an entire philosophical movement. He hated neo-positivism and ‘bristled’ when he had to mention it. And sometimes it was necessary. Finally, to end the conversation, I have a request: what advice would you give to current students of philosophy; how would you like to finish your statement? Philosophical studies are very individual work. Everyone must read the classics on their own, read their arguments, think about them, formulate their own conclusions. The discussion in class, at meetings of societies, at conferences is extremely important at that time. One cannot ignore the reading of the originals in these studies, of course not necessarily in the languages in which these writings were made. Excellent translations are available today and knowledge of foreign languages, including ancient languages, is unfortunately poor. You can, and even should, supplement these readings with historical elaborations, but not all are worth recommending. A careful selection is necessary. Philosophy is issues, the understanding of which changes with successive generations, so while reading, one should pose questions relevant to a given person, and thereby for their time. Andrzej Półtawski Biographical note Andrzej Półtawski (born February 22, 1923, Warsaw) interests: ontology, epistemology, ethics, anthropology He was born in Warsaw. In 1938 he completed his education at Municipal Secondary School No. 3 in Warsaw, and in 1940 at the T. Czacki State High School in Warsaw, passing the final exam of a mathematical and physical profile in secret education. From 1942, he was a soldier of the Home Army (a cadet officer), he participated in the Warsaw Rising, and after its end, he was a prisoner of the Altengrabow POW camp near Magdeburg. He studied philosophy at the Jagiellonian University under the supervision of R. Ingarden from 1945-1950. Professional career After completing his philosophical studies, he worked in construction and in­dustry until 1956. Then, from 1956-1957, he became a contract worker for The Institute of Philosophy and Sociology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, conducting a year-long research of Latin philosophical manuscripts at the Jagi­ellonian Library (where he met Karol Wojtyła). From 1957 to 1970 he was em­ployed at the Chair of Philosophy of the Jagiellonian University, first as a senior assistant lecturer, and then as an assistant professor. He worked at the Faculty of Christian Philosophy of the Academy of Catholic Theology from 1973-1993 (this is presently one of the faculties of the Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw), first as an assistant professor, then as an associate professor, where from 1974 he was the head of the Study of the Theory of Cognition, and from 1982 of the Chair of the Theory of Cognition. In addition, from 1983-1992 he taught the theory of cognition at the Studium of the Dominican Order in Krakow. He also gave guest lectures abroad at: the International Academy of Philosophy, Irving, USA (1982); Lichtenstein (1989); the Franciscan University of Steub­benville (1991); and the MEDO-Institute in Rolduc, the Netherlands (1993). Academic career and activity Under Ingarden, he wrote and defended his doctoral dissertation titled Items and Sense-Data. The World and Perception in the Works of G.E. Moore, obtaining the title of doctor of philosophy. He received his habilitation in 1972 at the Jagiello­nian University, based on his work entitled World, Perception, Consciousness. He was awarded the title of professor of humanities in 1985. He retired in 1993 but remains active in terms of research. He is the author of important and numerous publications in the field of epistemology, ethics and anthropology (books and articles), as well as the author of translations of philosophical works, including Ingarden’s works written in German. He was a supervisor and reviewer of many doctoral dissertations. He belongs to Polish and foreign scientific societies and institutions, including the Polish Philosophical Society, the Polish Academy of Sciences, the Polish Academy of Learning, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Phänome­nologische Forschung, the International Academy of Philosophy (Irving, Texas). Research In his research he deals with issues from the field of epistemology, ethics and anthropology. His first scientific dissertation concerned the philosophy of G.E. Moore. He analyzed the theory of perception and the issues of existence and cognition of the external world in it. He elaborated the British philosopher’s thought critically and in detail, taking its assumptions into account, i.e. sensual­ism, atomism and transcendentalism. He emphasized Moore’s realistic attitude, argued for the need to verify his position, and by referring to the phenomenol­ogy and Gestalt psychology, he outlined the possible direction of such a review. Another book by Półtawski is a critical analysis of the theory of cognition and ontology of Edmund Husserl and an outline of the genesis of his transcendental idealism in the context of Logical Investigations. In the positive, constructive part of this research work, Półtawski used parts of concepts of Husserl, Ingarden, E. Straus and H. Ey, to present a new model of world cognition. What is at the basis of cognitive processes is the whole of the experience, i.e. sensations, constituting the basic bond of a living being with the world, and perception. The scientific achievements of Półtawski also include ethical considerations, in which he emphasized that cognitive results should be considered in the context of moral and spiritual values. He dealt with, among others, the issue of the status of moral values in the views of of I. Kant and M. Scheler; considerations of K. Woj­ tyła. In his anthropological considerations, Półtawski referred to the reflections of R. Spaemann, Wojtyła and Ey, he also referred to the works of F. J. Buytendijk on the smile of a child. He presented the concept of the human as a person, where the foundation is moral experience, and in a broader understanding – their in­dividual’s bond with others. At the same time, he claims that a human becomes a person thanks to intersubjective contacts, moral improvement and openness to God. Simultaneously, openness to transcendence is a prerequisite for achieving humanity (a view consistent with the thought of John Paul II). Selected publications •. Rzeczy i dane zmysłowe. Świat i spostrzeżenie u G. E. Moore’a [Items and Sense-Data. The World and Perception in the Works of G. E. Moore]. Warszawa: PWN, 1966. •. Świat, spostrzeżenie, świadomość. Fenomenologiczna koncepcja świadomości a realizm [World, Perception, Consciousness. The Phenomenological Concept of Consciousness and Realism]. Warszawa: PWN, 1973. •. Realizm fenomenologii. Husserl, Ingarden, Stein, Wojtyła. Odczyty i rozprawy [The Realism of Phenomenology. Husserl, Ingarden, Stein, Wojtyła. Readings and Treatises]. Toruń: Rolewski, 2001. •. Po co filozofować? Ingarden – Wojtyła – skąd i dokąd? [Why Philosophize? Ingarden – Wojtyła – From Where and Where To?]. Warszawa: Oficyna Naukowa, 2011. Translations: • Ingarden, Roman. Wstęp do fenomenologii Husserla [Introduction to Husserl’s Phenomenology]. Warszawa: PWN, 1974. • Spaemann, Robert, and Reinhard Löw. Cele naturalne [Natural Purposes]. Warszawa: Oficyna Naukowa, 2008. Andrzej Półtawski “…Philosophy cannot be developed through experiments…” Interview conducted by Dominika Czakon and Rafał Kur Where did your interest in philosophy come from? It is difficult to say exactly when it started. In any case, when I came back from Germany in 1945 – after completing part of my studies at a Technical University there – I came to Krakow to study philosophy. I wanted to study philosophy and I think it turned out quite well. So, you knew from the beginning that it would be philosophy? Yes, of course. I came here for philosophy. At the time my parents, after leaving Warsaw in the aftermath of the Warsaw Uprising and surviving until the end of the war in Opoczno, ended up in Kielce and I settled in Krakow and took on philosophy. And, above all, under Ingarden from the very beginning. Ingarden was already known in Krakow? Yes, no doubt. I don’t remember exactly how it was with the other professors of philosophy like Zygmunt Zawirski or Bolesław Józef Gawecki. Professor Izydora Dąmbska joined later. Professor Ingarden was a central figure at the University? Yes, but there was also Świeżawski, Tatarkiewicz. Ingarden attracted people because he had all this charisma and was a philosopher. Not all philosophy teachers are philosophers, and he was undoubtedly a philosopher and taught philosophizing. Did you learn a lot from Professor? Well, I think so. Actually, you could say that the task of the university – in fact, is difficult and serious – is to teach people to read and write. You see, it’s not that simple of a task in philosophy, and that’s what Ingarden taught. So, Ingarden was teaching from the basics? Yes, no doubt. Of course, it was quite a specific philosophy, so I think it was better when someone came to study it not straight after high school, but rather having studied something else for a bit first. I think that some earlier practice in more logical-analytical issues wouldn’t hurt for a student who wanted to study under Ingarden either. Ingarden would immediately hit hard tones, but on the other hand, it can be said that he really did teach reading and writing. Undoubtedly, the greatest of his classes was what he called the proseminar. He was also a very good lecturer, good instructor in the seminar, etc., but in the proseminar we’d read philosophical texts – I remember mainly Descartes’s Meditations – and we’d have to outline the structure, make a plan of what had been read. This is a very valuable exercise, and not an easy one at all. It was probably, in a sense, the most valuable part of his teachings. Every participant of the proseminar had to prepare an outline after the reading? Yes. It was read together, discussed, the text was analyzed, and then everyone made their individual reflections into an outline, a plan. And when you really try to do that, it turns out that it is not that easy – so in a sense it was learning how to read and write. Or how to do it in a reliable way? Let me tell you, philosophy is not easy to read, given that every eminent phi­losopher has their own language and their own terminology, more or less. You need to be able to get to the bottom of what they really mean by a given term. Ingarden undoubtedly taught that. I think that there was probably no one in Poland who could do it better. And then there was probably time for some more informal discussions? Yes. Seminars, in turn, were presentations. Apart from this, he really did super­vise the doctoral dissertations. This is the greatest danger in philosophy – that a doctorate can just appear out of nowhere, so to speak. This leads to bad results. However, I think that both the professor and the student should be required to first and foremost focus on the subject. It sometimes now happens, both in cases of doctoral and postdoctoral theses, that someone attempts to write something like a philosophical summa. The results cannot be very good. And only then do they start searching for a poor professor who will approve it. Was Ingarden your supervisor? Yes. He supervised both my M.A. and PhD theses. He read and discussed these works. But I’m not really convinced I would’ve dared to publish my habilitation work if Ingarden was still alive at the time. He had very strong views and strongly reacted to objections, and I unfortunately had some doubts about certain aspects of those views. Does that mean you disagreed with Ingarden? Well, of course it happened gradually. Although most of my colleagues moved rather immediately towards analytic philosophy, which is understandable. Ana­lytic philosophy is much simpler, easier to practice and stands on an established foundation. Phenomenology, on the other hand, requires sailing onto deep waters, there is no firm ground there. Ingarden tried to build a realistic phenomenology, and at the same time he had this epistemological approach and – what’s even worse – he took over Husserl’s epistemology, which was not realistic. Husserl’s official doctrine was pure idealism. Was there anything else you were studying? Yes, my other one was art history. But it was a very pleasant additional exam, with Professor Molé. He was a very elegant gentleman and an interesting art historian. How strong of an influence was Ingarden on you? It’s difficult to say. In a sense he was definitely a strong influence. Firstly, when a student encounters a teacher’s vivid thinking, they are concerned with it, they take on the challenge. And apart from that, the very question of a realistic approach to philosophy – whatever it might mean – was an interesting and important issue, and he would stubbornly try to move in that direction. And this paved my way – the fact that this road didn’t exactly follow in its footsteps, is another matter. But you did participate in these seminars and proseminars conducted by Ingarden? I attended the seminars and proseminars. There was also the Polish Philosophical Society, it had its meetings, there was an Aesthetics Section. I cooperated with it and recorded the sessions of the Section. Even though it irked me sometimes, because Ingarden had this idea that quality is the basic element of the world. This is a difficult approach, and even more so, because he wanted to set quality lists in these aesthetic studies. And this, I think, is not the best approach in aesthetics. Let’s s say you have, for example, Mickiewicz’s Polish alexandrine, and now, what qualities does it have? It has specific qualities because it is embedded in the entire system of the Polish language and history of Polish literature. If you just start look­ing for these qualities straightforwardly, then you no longer know which way to go. Do you think that Ingarden was aware of these problems and the issue of the application of his theory in practice? Yes, of course he was aware of it, but his basic line of philosophy, his ontology did not match it. His ontology suited literary work very well, and as for reality – not so much Were there any private social meetings of the students with Professor? There would be some, yes. Apart from that, we maintained social relations with Professor Ingarden, or maybe he did with us. In addition, there were meetings and parties of the Philosophical Circle, which were attended by the professors and other lecturers. I remember one where Kazimierz Bartoszyński and I presented a sort of parody of Ingarden’s seminar. And were these seminars popular? Were there many participants? There were quite a few. I think that the classes were considerably demanding. Professor Woleński said that Ingarden was quite authoritative. Yes, of course. He’d react very strongly to deviations from his view. But at the same time, he was a very polite man you could argue with – to a certain extent, because some issues were untouchable. Was it easy to upset Professor Ingarden? No, I do not think so. He was a very conscientious university employee; he took all his tasks very seriously. He was capable of taking a schizophrenic individual all the way to a PhD. You can only imagine what great work that was! Besides Meditations, do you remember any favorite readings Ingarden ana­lyzed with the students? Maybe something of Hume’s. But Hume is a strange character – he is consid­ered very clear in his writing, but it’s a big illusion, because if you really try to understand what’s behind his writings, it gets worse. – Ingarden was also heav­ily influenced by the British empiricists and these empirics were quite widely taken under consideration at the seminar. As well as Kant and good amount of phenomenology referring to Husserl. Ingarden was, very strongly involved with Husserl both theoretically and emotionally Besides Ingarden, who else had the most interesting classes in philosophy? Ingarden was, no doubt, the most interesting. Who else could I name… Tatarkiewicz, right? Tatarkiewicz was such a great philosophy popularizer. Was he pleasant to listen to? Yes, he was able to make an interesting lecture on the most boring topic. This is a great skill! He had this technique. Tatarkiewicz would undoubtedly have a certain position on the list, others perhaps less so. Dąmbska came to Krakow later, and I was already outside of the group of students when she did. She later had a lot of her own highly involved students who valued her greatly, because she was a great woman. She was very brave, but at the same time, let’s say, she didn’t have the strongest of nerves. Although that doesn’t mean that she did not know how to cope. For example, during the occupation, during the final exam after secret high school, someone came to the flat, announcing that the Gestapo was in the neighboring house. Dąmbska, who instructed those classes, replied: “Please do not disturb, the students are writing their final exam”. I also remember that Danuta Gierulanka was a great lecturer and a very clever head. She taught us psychology, but you know that Gierulanka had a master’s degree in mathematics, a PhD in psychology and a habilitation in philosophy. These were really elaborate, well-prepared lectures with a certain analytical flair. Do you remember any other women studying and working at the university at the time? Maria Gołaszewska, Zofia Żarnecka, Janina Makota, Maria Turowicz, Irena Średzińska, Maria Goetlówna, Krystyna Danecka (later Szopowa).Those were my classmates at university. At the very beginning, also Teresa Tymieniecka, before she went abroad. What other subjects did Ingarden lecture in? He had lectures in a whole range of philosophical subjects. These lectures have largely been published, so many of them can be found in his books. Were Ingarden’s classes mandatory? There was no obligation or coercion. You did not have to do your M.A. under Ingarden and I think that those who didn’t feel like overworking themselves went looking for some other supervisors. Most people, however, were interested in studying and wanted to learn. Would you be able to point to readings Professor Ingarden did not appreciate, or disliked? Yes, there were such things. For example, the German Introduction to Philosophy by Jerusalem, whom he called a charlatan. However, he had broader horizons in terms of that than, for example, Nicolai Hartmann, who had the following exchange with a student who came to sign up for his seminar: “And what kind of preparation do you have?” – “I attended a seminar with Professor Heidegger” – “I was asking about philosophical studies!”. I think that Ingarden would never say anything like that. And he’d admit this student? Ingarden was a phenomenologist, and this is something completely different that Hartmann’s way of thinking. But he held Hartmann in a remarkably high regard and was also dependent on him to some extent. The whole concept of layers, etc., is a testimony to Hartmann’s influence on him. And what were the final tests and exams with him like? Were they difficult? They were in a conversational format; it was personal contact after all. These weren’t tests. Was he very demanding in his classes and exams? It’s hard to say. I think he could be quite forgiving. But of course, he had his expectations – moreover, people studied for his classes. Is there something Ingarden didn’t like in his students, something he wouldn’t accept? No. It seems to me that he was very open with the students and he was willing to do a lot for them. And what were Ingarden’s relationships with Dąmbska and Gierulanka like? With Gierulanka, it was very close cooperation and a friendship. With Dąmb­ ska less so because she was from a slightly different circle. Dąmbska was the Lvov-Warsaw School. Did you and the other students were aware that Ingarden is such an out-standing philosopher? Yes, we were aware of that. He was an outstanding man. However, I think that in the direction which he wanted to go Husserl’s theory of cognition was in the way a lot. How much do you think Ingarden appreciated Husserl? Ingarden realized the magnitude of such philosophers as Plato, Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, or Kant. But, of course, he was Husserl’s disciple and he was probably the most faithful one. I can tell you an anecdote. I think it was on the centenary of Husserl’s birth­day a session was organized at the Palace of Culture and Science in Warsaw, and Ingarden spoke at it. And when he said that it was so difficult for Husserl to deal with the world in which he lived, he had tears in his eyes. Ingarden as a lecturer was more of a storyteller or more of an analyst? These were nice and well-spoken lectures. But of course, he lectured quite freely, digressions and jokes included. Did he favor anyone in his classes? Well, I think that he had his preferences, but it certainly did not affect his attitude towards the students or change the way he’d deal with their affairs. Are you familiar with the so-called Thursday evenings at Ingarden’s? Yes, there was such a thing, but it’s difficult for me to separate those from visits at his place in general. It seems to me that such meetings, this more frequent cooperation began when he retired and was no longer at the university. Interestingly, Ingarden was very entertaining in his lectures and he spoke well, and in thoseprivate meetings he was nice and interesting, but let’s say it was with­out much of an esprit. He was a bit heavy and serious. In contrast, another one of our professors, Stefan Szuman, had really strange lectures, mumbled, walked around, etc., but when you’d sit down with him at his table in the evening he was incredible, full of esprit in those private contacts. Whowould go to these private meetings? Gołaszewska,Gierulanka, Stróżewski, of course. Maybe Wegrzecki. Goetel-Kopff – an art historian and philosopher. She was an attractive lady, and Ingarden liked attractive ladies. What were the subjects of those meetings? It was a specific work, but now I cannot describe it very well. Did you have close, friendly contacts with Ingarden? Yes, I would say that. I was his assistant since he came back to work at the university in 1956. Earlier, I was doing my masters under him, before he was suspended from lecturing. Then I went to work in Nowa Huta as a mechanical technician and I stayed there until political thaw in 1956. When Ingarden came back to the University I became his assistant until his retirement. Even later, we kept cordial contacts. Did Ingarden have any favorite painters? Or works of art in general. Ingarden was certainly sensitive to art. As well as to music, and music is a field I’m not very familiar with. However, I think that he was probably the most creative in the area of aesthetics. His theory of literary work has undoubtedly become a classic read in the field. I don’t know how many dissertations were written in America based on Ingarden’s theory of literary work, but I’m sure it’s a lot! Did Ingarden participated in the artistic life of Krakow? No doubt he was interested in that. Besides, quite a few artists would attend his seminars. And from different domains. Zanussi would drop by sometimes. Philosopher and painter Paweł Taranczewski was a student and one of the sem­inar’s participants. Did Ingarden ever say anything about socialist art? I don’t think he ever particularly concerned himself with socialist realism. Be­sides, he was a cautious man, and he’d never make any such counter-regime announcements – he was aware that he was closely being observed and that even his philosophy was not very much liked by ‘the comrades’. So, he kept away from politics? Yes.I remember this trip of Ingarden’s students to Czchów. At that time the dam in Czchów was being built, and the wife of the engineer who built it – Ms. Wanda Wojciechowska, attended our seminar. One Secret Service informant also went on this trip, and later he did quite a bit of harm to some people. There was also a student who at one point came to Ingarden and cried – ad­mitting she also worked in in that field and she felt guilty about it. There are pictures from this trip. In the collective photo engineer Wojciechowski and his wife are standing in the back, the aforementioned informant in dark sunglasses, me and Galeński’s assistant lecturer – I don’t remember his name. In the middle row from the left you can see Maria Turowicz, Maria Goetel (later Kopff), Irena Średzińska, Maria Ingarden and Danuta Gierulanka. From the left sitting: Owoc, Krystyna Danecka (later Szop) and Rogalski, I think. Did Ingarden have a sense of humor? He had a sense of humor, but I think it was a calm one, no joke telling. Do you remember Ingarden’s dog? Yes. He liked himvery much. He was called Dżok. There’s a nice photo of him with the Professor. Did you write letters to Ingarden? Not many. In any case, I am not particularly keen on letters. But we did write a few to each other. In the end, we would like to talk about the methods of teaching philosophy now and then. Is there a significant difference between the model of teaching back then and today’s? I’m not really familiar with what the model of teaching is now, because I’ve had very little contact with the university for the past 20 years. Besides, even before that I knew what I was doing, but it’s not like I’d go to various lectures to see how others teach. I do think, however, that Ingarden’s times were still the good times, when teaching was more humanistic and individual, which I think is essential for philosophy. Philosophy cannot be developed through experiments. Do you consider the choice of philosophy to have been the right one for you? I never wanted to do anything else. Ewa Sowa Biographical note Ewa Sowa (born January 21, 1935, Olkusz) interests: history of philosophy, philosophy of work, French existential phenomenology She was born in Olkusz, where she graduated from Kazimierz the Great High School in 1951. She studied at the Faculty of Agriculture of the Jagiellonian Uni­versity and graduated in 1955 with the title of engineer. In the years 1955-1958 she worked in field experimental stations of the Institute of Animal Production and the University of Agriculture in Krakow. In 1958, she married Ryszard Sowa, then a professor at the Faculty of Biology of the Jagiellonian University, with whom she raised two daughters, Barbara and Katarzyna. Studies and professional work (activities in the anti-communist opposition) In 1958, after the Chair of Philosophy was reopened and Professor Roman Ingarden was reinstated and allowed to teach classes (1957), she began studying philosophy at the Faculty of Philosophy and History of the Jagiellonian Uni­versity. Simultaneously with philosophy, she studied the history and theory of literature at the Faculty of Polish Philology of the Jagiellonian University under the supervision of Professors Henryk Markiewicz, Maria Dłuska and Wacław Kubacki. Her philosophical studies progressed under the supervision of Professor Ingarden, who was the supervisor in her master’s, and later doctoral, degree. She defended her master’s thesis (On Metaphor in the Language of Literary Fiction) in January 1964. She defended her doctoral thesis (The Concept of Labor in the Philosophy of Stanisław Brzozowski), in June 1972 (after Ingarden’s death) at the Jagiellonian University. She worked as an assistant and senior assistant lecturer at the Institute of Social Sciences of the AGH University of Science and Technology in Krakow (1964-1971), then as an assistant professor at the Institute of Philosophy of the University of Silesia, in the Department of History of Philosophy (1972-1982 and 1990-1998), lecturing in the History of Contemporary Philosophy for stu­dents of philosophy, and in the History of Philosophy for other majors. Work at the University of Silesia was interrupted during martial law by her relegation from it for political reasons. For eight years officially out of the job, and deprived of the right to practice, she continued teaching in Katowice, conducting an un­derground philosophy seminar for the students of the University of Silesia and the Silesian University of Technology, and cooperating with the community of Solidarność [Solidarity] in Szczecin, where she was active as a lecturer since 1975 and during martial law. In 1990, she was reinstated at the University of Silesia at the request of the University’s authorities. She retired in 1998. In 1991 she was awarded the Medal of Solidarność [Solidarity] of the Silesia and Dąbrowa Region. She holds the status of a repressed opposition activist. Research Ewa Sowa was interested in the history of philosophy in its progressive trend, working out the understanding of philosophy itself and its relationship with particular sciences. She built the structure of her own lectures around this issue. She dealt with the Western European philosophy of praxis, emphasizing its transcendental roots, and the Polish philosophy of labor, developing it creatively in publications critical of official Marxism. She published the first monograph on the philosophy of Stanisław Brzozowski. In recent years, she focused on French existential phenomenology, translating Emmanuel Levinas and Vladimir Jankelevitch). Selected publications • “Problem literackiej metafory” [The Issue of Literary Metaphor]. In Pheno­menology of Roman Ingarden, edited by Zdzisław Augustynek et al. Warszawa: Instytut Filozofii i Socjologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1972. • “Stanisław Brzozowski a myśl filozoficzna marksizmu” [Stanisław Brzozowski and the Philosophical Thought of Marxism]. In Wokół myśli Stanisława Brzo­zowskiego, edited by Andrzej Walicki, and Roman Zimand, Krakow: Wydaw­nictwo Literackie, 1974. • “Teoria twórczości w pismach Stanisława Brzozowskiego” [The Theory of Cre­ativity in the Writings of Stanisław Brzozowski]. Studia Filozoficzne [Philoso­phical Studies] no. 6 (1975): 59-75. •. Pojęcie pracy w filozofii Stanisława Brzozowskiego [The Concept of Labor in the Philosophy of Stanisław Brzozowski]. Krakow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1976. • “Roman Ingarden jako historyk filozofii” [Roman Ingarden as a Historian of Philosophy]. In W kręgu filozofii Romana Ingardena. Materiały z konferencji naukowej, Kraków 1985 [In the Circle of the Philosophy of Roman Ingarden], edited by Władysław Stróżewski, and Adam Węgrzecki. Warszawa and Krakow: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, 1995. • “Zagadnienie prawdy w Krytyce czystego rozumu Immanuela Kanta” [The Issue of Truth in the Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant]. Folia Philosophica 15 (1997): 115-20. • “Doświadczenie wiary filozofa. Uwagi o myśli religijnej Augusta Cieszkowskiego i Stanisława Brzozowskiego” [The Philosopher’s Experience of Faith. Remarks on Religious Thought of August Cieszkowski and Stanisław Brzozowski]. In Polacy o religii. Od myślenia religijnego do filozofii [Poles on Religion. From Religious Thinking to Philosophy], edited by Joanna Barcik, and Grzegorz Chrzanowski. Krakow: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 2005. • “Emmanuela Levinasa myślenie z Husserlem (na marginesie polskiego wy­dania książki E. Levinasa En découvrant l’existence avec Husserl et Heidegger)” [Emmanuel Levinas’s Thinking with Husserl (Commentary to the Polish Edition of E. Levinas’ En découvrant l’existence avec Husserl et Heidegger)]. Kwartalnik Filozoficzny [Philosophical Quarterly] 37, no. 1 (2009): 61-75. Translations: • Levinas, Emmanuel. “Etyka jako filozofia pierwsza” [Ethics as First Philosophy]. Kwartalnik Filozoficzny [Philosophical Quarterly] 30, no. 3 (2002): 147-159. • Husserl, Edmund. “Samoobecność w spostrzeżeniu” [Self-Presence in Per­ception]. Kwartalnik Filozoficzny [Philosophical Quarterly] 31, no. 1 (2003): 117-139. • Levinas, Emmanuel. “Kilka myśli o filozofii hitleryzmu” [Reflections on the Philosophy of Hitlerism]. Kwartalnik Filozoficzny [Philosophical Quarterly] 32, no. 1 (2004): 127-136. • Levinas, Emmanuel. Odkrywając egzystencję z Husserlem i Heideggerem [Dis­covering Existence with Husserl and Heidegger]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo IFiS PAN, 2008. • Jankelevitch, Vladimir. Nie wiem co i prawie nic [The I-Know-Not-What and the Almost-Nothing] (3 volumes, unpublished). Ewa Sowa “…A man and a teacher are ultimately inseparable…” Interview conducted by Natalia Anna Michna and Jan Turlej Where did your interest in philosophy come from? I had already graduated at that point. I was studying at the famous Faculty of Agriculture at the Jagiellonian University in Krakow, which at the end of my studies was renamed the University of Agriculture. I studied there for three and a half years and was awarded the title of Zootechnical Engineer. I did not go into humanistic studies, even though I had had such interests since childhood, because my father objected to it – and rightfully so, because humanities were extremely distorted by politics at the time. Humanities had a political stigma, so my father said: “Choose a more specific field of studies” and, since he was an authority for me, I eventually thought I liked the forest and signed up for forestry. But forestry was being liquidated and all applications were transferred to agriculture. I thought that it was good, I liked animals too, maybe I would ride horses – and I finished the zootechnics. And that was my great luck. Voca­tional subjects began in the third year, while the first two years was an excellent study of natural sciences with numerous laboratories, at the best university in Poland, with pre-war professorial staff. So, I had gone through anatomy with the dissecting room and all possible sorts of chemistry, physiology and phys­ics. Simply general natural sciences, though short. Afterwards I worked at the Institute of Animal Science. It was a job in Zator, near Wadowice, in the great former estate of Potocki Family with all its fishponds. Some were so big that you couldn’t see the opposite bank. I went there and I was supposed to get my master’s degree, but in the end, I stayed an engineer. I set up a hydro chemical laboratory in Zator and studied the chemical composition of water which was related to various fish diseases which Professor Stanisław Żarnecki (a relative of Ms. Ewa Żarnecka-Biały1, for that matter) worked on. I still had to add a the­oretical part to the studies I did and developed statistically. I gave them up to Professor Żarnecki when I decided on my second major, because I was still living with this hunger that it was not mine, it was not for me. And when I found out that they were opening philosophical studies in Krakow, I decided to try to get 1 Ewa Żarnecka-Biały, Professor of philosophy at the Institute of Philosophy of the Jagiellonian University [ed. note]. in. I still had no idea who Ingarden was, but I had some friends in humanities in Krakow who did. One of them was Jasia Szarek2. Ms. Szarek is a unique personality at the Institute of Philosophy at Jagiello­nian University. She ran the library; she was its creator and our good spirit. She was going to be employed there and told me about philosophy. My father was right, because everyone who studied humanities in the fifties, after October, basically had to learn from scratch. Professor Ingarden returned to the University in 1957. I started studying in 1958. And I finished with a six-month delay, I defended my master’s thesis under the Professor not in spring 1963, but in January 1964. And the reason I was late was because I could not come up with an idea. What was the subject of your master’s thesis? This was my first ever academic work, about metaphors in the language of literary fiction. It was published after the Professor’s death in 1970. Two or three years later, a special issue of Studia Filozoficzne [Philosophical Studies] dedicated to the Professor came out, a thick volume, and it was published there3. It is worth mentioning that I took the entrance exam to get into philosophy, since I didn’t know that it wasn’t mandatory if you already had a degree. There were only ten spots available at that time. Then, after summer vacation, there were a few people who finished or continued other studies and the Professor managed to get them in. I pride myself in getting in from the exam route and only later revealing that I already had the notch of a university education on my belt. Simultaneously to philosophy I attended classes at Polish studies, including Professor Henryk Markiewicz’s seminar on literary theory, probably for two, or even three years. 2 Janina Szarek, an employee of the library of the Marxist Philosophy Department at Manifestu Lipcowego St., currently J. Piłsudski St., later the head of the Library of the Institute of Philosophy at Grodzka St. 52 [ed. note]. 3 Ewa Sowa, “Problem literackiej metafory,” Studia Filozoficzne, special issue: Fenome­nologia Romana Ingardena (1972): 381-95. At that time, he argued with Ingarden about the truth in literature. Professor Markiewicz welcomed me with open arms, because I came ‘from Ingarden’, and of course he was fascinated by the theory of literary works which for philoso­phers was only the study of an intentional object and had a background in the Professor’s more fundamental theoretical philosophy. Naturally, I only attended those classes at Polish studies that interested me, ordered my knowledge and readings. Afterwards, it turned out to be necessary to explore the mystery of the metaphor. I listened to the lectures on Romanticism of Wacław Kubacki which were phenomenal, with great analyses of Norwid. I also took part in extraordi­nary classes on Shakespeare (probably also with Professor Kubacki). Above all, however, I participated in the classes of Professor Maria Dłuska, both lectures and seminars. She dealt with versification, the melody of a poem, the sound, the construction of a poem. I even passed a quite serious exam with her! So, studying philosophy was the fulfillment of your dreams and interests? Yes, absolutely. I could deal with animals recreationally, and philosophy allowed me to deal with what I’m interested in. Before, I would always snoop around among various friends to find out what was happening in Krakow and where to go to study… I learned about philosophy from the already mentioned Jasia Szarek. Ingarden had been suspended in his academic duties from the times of Stalinism until 1957. Back then philosophers were ‘produced’ in Warsaw. They were just ideologues, the studies before October 1956 weren’t real studies. In Krakow, philosophy was shut down. It was only in 1957 that it was reopened and Professor Ingarden was allowed to teach again. But there was one more beautiful figure, Professor Izydora Dąmbska, who was also deprived of teaching opportunities for years. Well, us young people found ourselves in a fairy tale... Out of this world, you could say… Do you remember your friends from that time? Who did you meet at In­garden’s studies? Three people were closest to me both socially and spiritually: my friend Joanna Turowicz-Piasecka, she went to Sweden and worked at the University of Lund. She has not been in Poland for more than 30 years. Andrzej Wroński, Jan Woleński and one more Janek, I liked him the most because he was an extremely good man, and it was Jan Vetulani. He, like Woleński, graduated in law and both entered philosophy already with degrees. Janek Vetulani, after graduating from law and then philosophy, worked as an assistant lecturer at the Faculty of Law, probably at the Department of Logic. He died tragically while kayaking on the Dunajec river. But he was somehow always a bit lost in space… I remember that we all once went hiking on Turbacz with Andrzej Półtawski as our guide. Janek Vetulani was there too. It was New Year’s Eve. And then we went skiing in a terrible fog and we lost Vetulani. I remember the dramatic search, because it was already evening, with all the fog, a snowstorm coming any minute… And he got lost because he lost his orientation. He was a morally and spiritually unique man. I had a very hard time dealing with his passing. And how about social gatherings? What were your – Ingarden’s students’ – relations like aside from studying philosophy? I had a group of friends in philology, because I spend quite some time in classes at the mentioned Polish studies, for three years at least. There were some inter­esting people there. The late Michał Sprusiński, a poet and translator, Franciszek Ziejka, a great classmate. Jan Pieszczachowicz was also there, but I wasn’t very fond of him… Jola Rozin, the closest disciple of Ms. Dłuska, we were all together in one of Ms. Dłuska’s seminar groups. For two years. We would also go to her home, to this ‘professorial coffin’ at the Three Bards Avenue. She would sit on the sofa and conduct the seminar. Apart from this, Professor Dłuska also ‘trained’ with Michałowska, Danuta Michałowska, the reciter. She had a wonderful ear for language. How about house parties? There were parties at our place. I got married in the first year of my studies. My husband, Ryszard Sowa, was a beginner assistant lecturer in biology. Afterwards he advanced very quickly in his career, he was one of the youngest professors in Poland. He died young, at the age of 55. From the very beginning, he was very much integrated into my philosophical social circle, as a matter of fact, he passed his doctoral exam in philosophy with Ms. Dąmbska. I can’t remember which year it was, but I was certainly still in the middle of my studies. He was world-renowned as a taxonomist, supposedly there was always a line of people wanting to talk to him at different congresses... But getting back to the parties, a few people would always come, for example, Professor Franciszek Studnicki, who had close relations with the ‘philosophical youth’ and would often be driving around Krakow on his scooter with girls in the back… A very nice man indeed, he’d visit too… And Jolanta Załuska. She’s been in Paris for years, she’s an art historian and a biblical scholar. It is worth adding that she was the wife of Tadeusz Milik, the one who deciphered the Qumran manuscripts. Also, Kry­styna Stamirowska, she is now a professor in English Studies, though probably already retired, I lost touch with her. Joanna Turowicz-Piasecka, Jan Vetulani. Andrzej Półtawski and Władysław Stróżewski, assistant lecturers at the time, would also show up sometimes. And, of course, you’d go to Piwnica, but I was not a regular there. Were thse parties just social gatherings? Did any academic discussions ever sneak in? It was a mix of all. Of course, there was a lot of wine and a lot of cigarettes unfortunately, but later almost everyone quit. We did not have any supreme conditions there, since my husband and I lived in one room, in a shared com­munal apartment. But the meetings were full of humor, intellectually interesting and very integrating, and in their course I learned one thing which should be remembered today: that it is not the interior design, the salons, or a variety of great meals, but the quality of people that is the most important. As for the philosophy studies themselves now. What were the subjects and who were their instructors at the time? Apart from Ingarden, of course, was Ms. Dąmbska, who taught Introduction to Philosophy and Ethics, but I have to admit that it was not very interesting to me. Dąmbska was a student of Kazimierz Twardowski and brought up a group of students in the spirit of the Lvov-Warsaw School. Woleński is her disciple, for example. As well as the recently deceased Jerzy Perzanowski, and Andrzej Wroński. Wroński was my closest friend at the beginning of my studies. During the first and second year, we would study together, sitting at a table, cramming Tatarkiewicz, then logic, from which Andrzej only got a satisfactory grade in the second year, and even that was only on the second try. We drifted apart later, though, because Andrzej partied too much! He had such a period… Andrzej was from Łódź and lived in the dorms and, well, he got a little off track, everyone does sooner or later. Besides, he was young at the time because he got into philosophy straight after high school. After he was employed by Professor Pasenkiewicz at the Department of Logic he lived at Kanonicza St. in the Jagiellonian Univer­sity’s assistant lecturers’ hotel. We’d visit him there. And he had such holes in the walls that you could look out into the yard. It was a run-down apartment, messy, only he bore great academic ideas in this chaos. And there was another cafe on the corner nearby, I think it’s a bakery now – at the corner of Grodzka and Senacka Streets, which also had a nice atmosphere for thinking, so Andrzej also worked out his academic problems there. We were also very devoted to our studies, of course. In fact, we lived them. The environment was favorable and we had an unlikely chance to have contact with Ingarden and Dąmbska. After all, meeting with them was like a meeting out of the world we lived in! Such professors were not allowed to teach in the Stalinist years. And all this pre-war staff was excellently educated. Few of us could ever dream of becoming such professor at any given time in our lives! I am a doctor myself. I went through various crossroads, very serious ones… I was involved in the opposition, I was involved in Solidarność [Solidarity] and I had two children. I worked on a habilitation degree in Sartre and his Critique of Dialectical Reason, entirely unknown in Poland, but after my experiences in Solidarność [Solidarity], he became completely outdated for me, first spiritually, then also intellectually… I wasn’t able to continue working on it. I wanted some leftists in the opposition as well. And then came the Breakthrough. However, the issue of understanding Marxism as an outline of transcendental philosophy and as a challenge for the world at that time, and not just as vulgar materialism, remains or as an irresponsible political doctrine! What did Ingarden lectured back then? In the first year he lectured in logic. For me it was the first time I felt the taste of logic since he lectured in classical logic. Because later, when Professor Pa­senkiewicz entered with formal logic and started with a number of symbols on the blackboard in my second year I stopped understanding what was going on! Pure abstraction! Where was the reality or any reference to it?! But I understand that logic, just like mathematics, can be like poetry for some, and undoubtedly it is a great challenge for thought. Wroński went that way. Then Professor In­garden went to America for half a year. We were then in or right after our first year. But Ingarden’s lectures were always interesting and the level he presented would often have us astonished. The Professor was also an aesthetic phenom­enon, he had a very expressive face and gesticulation. These were not dry or distant classes. He was very much involved in everything he said. I remember that in the first year Ms. Dąmbska had the Introduction to Philosophy with us. In the second, Danuta Gierulanka, Ingarden’s closest associate alongside Andrzej Półtawski, had Psychology. There were no classes in ethics and aesthetics yet. These would only come in the third year. Of course, in the first year there was the history of ancient and medieval philosophy and it was taught by Professor Daniela Gromska, a famous translator of Aristotle.There were two such figures: Ms. Dąmbska and Ms. Gromska, who was a very restrained person. Both had studied with Kazimierz Twardowski and worked at the University of Lviv before the war. I remember that Ms. Gromska read Plato with us assigning everyone roles. We crammed Tatarkiewicz together for her exam with Wroński. He who’d walk around in sneakers, with a gliding, long step, keeping his face serious and gluing his jeans together. It was hard to get jeans back then. It was really something to have genuine jeans! So, when they’d give out and tear, he’d glue them back together. And then of course they were stiff… But it was sort of fetishism. I also had an old hand­me-down sweater from my father, consisting mainly of darns, in which I wrote my master’s thesis… Had someone ever tried to take it away from me, I would feel like I was deprived of my ability to think. Fortunately, it was secretly burned by my family only after my defense. What other classes from that time do you remember? Ingarden came back in the second year. But we, again, had lectures in the History of Modern Philosophy with Ms. Gromska and workshops with Ms. Dąmbska’s assistant lecturer, with the late Ms. Janina Makota, if I remember correctly. Ms. Dąmbska’s assistant lecturer was Stróżewski, and Ingarden’s assistant lecturer was Andrzej Półtawski. I remember that Stróżewski had fascinating classes in ethics in the third year and although he was usually late, we’d always wait. Even for twenty minutes of class, it was worth waiting. I don’t remember Ingarden from my second year at all… But I remember him perfectly from the third one, we had contemporary philosophy with him, to which Półtawski instructed workshops. In addition, there was Aesthetics with Ingarden and a lecture on Ethics with Ms. Dąmbska. I remember finally being a straight-A student… I needed as much as two years to get a rough grasp of what that was all about. Earlier I did not understand much, although I absorbed it somehow, non-verbally… I struggled with reading, finding ambiguity in the text, with the skill to organize the text according to what the essence of the argument was. It was a difficult job, also in terms of writing, that we were assigned over sum-mer vacation or at the beginning of the year. We got it from Ms. Gierulanka, in foreign languages, as well as Ms. Dąmbska. Everything of the utmost importance to me began along with Ingarden’s seminars. If the Professor had a seminar or a lecture with another year, everybody would go. And that’s why it gets a little blurred for me. He once had a semester lecture on Hegel, I remember, he made a general introduction to The Phenomenology of Spirit. He also had a lecture on Kant for the second year which I attended in my third. In Ms. Gromska’s case, the study of Antiquity and the Middle Ages consisted in cramming the maximum amount of history, namely facts and such, whereas in Ingarden’s case contemporary history consisted in understanding the most important trends. The lectures were very detailed, but they were always based on source materials, so it wasn’t just a repetition of the textbook. Everything was original. It was no longer a ‘nursery’. And what were the exams with Professor Ingarden like? I remember the exams very well! I took my first exams in Aesthetics and Con­temporary Philosophy only in my third year. And the master’s exam at the end, Professor Dąmbska was in in the committee. It was the last master’s exam with the Professor. Each time it was not simply answering questions, but a conver­ sation which lasted about an hour. Of course, her starting point was a question, though always a very general one. These exams were pleasant and easy for me. They both treated the students very kindly. Would the Professor ever help a student during an exam? I don’t know if he ever did, but it did not happen in my case, and this is not bragging… I also liked Ms. Dąmbska’s exams, besides, they were similar, she’d also have a conversation. Was there anything that Ingarden particularly valued in his students and something he absolutely did not tolerate, like talking during a lecture? Who would talk during Ingarden’s lecture?! What are you even saying?! I know it’s different now because I have two adult daughters and I know a bit about what education is currently like. Both Ingarden and Ms. Dąmbska did not tolerate, lies and a lack of integrity at all. It was unthinkable with both of them and the atmosphere they created themselves was what made it this way for us. Was Ingarden objective in his lectures? It is known that he disliked analytic philosophy, but was he able to put aside his personal philosophical prefer­ences in lectures? Well, I’m not very fond of analytic philosophy either… Especially when ana­lytics say that it is the only philosophy which exists as a science. The struggle of this philosophy for dominance in the world today is a threat to humanistic civilization. Well, it is the echo of nineteenth-century positivism, and, after all, Husserl’s philosophy and the whole phenomenological movement in Germany and in Europe was anti-positivist and belongs to the anti-positivist turn, right? Returning to the question, I must admit that at the time I was at the stage of absorbing what Ingarden was saying, and I was unable to really look at it from an independent point of view. It seems to me that nobody is that wise from the start… on the contrary. I think that there are periods when one absorbs uncritically like a sponge… Sometimes you might absorb the wrong things and you don’t really know what to do with it. That’s the way it is where monocultures exist. For example, philosophy in the Scandinavian world, which I know a little about, is already almost exclusively analytic philosophy. That is truly suffocating, there is simply no philosophy there! What type of a lecturer was Ingarden? Would he tell some anecdotes during lectures or was he always matter-of-fact and serious? There were some anecdotes and memories shared because he knew many people he spoke about. He had studied in Germany, he did his doctorate under Hus­serl, he had world-wide academic contacts. He’d always dive deep into issues, these were problem-oriented lectures, but in the framework of very accurate, biographical and bibliographic commentary. Maybe not just commentary, because Ingarden would start with that. The academic environment, important works and then the substantive sense and the course of development of views. I suppose that the Professor did not reject hermeneutic research, but he did not consider it foremost in the order of things. First you had to find out what was written. Personally, I don’t know how I could live my life without such studies in the humanities, without problem-oriented studies. Philosophy is so important to me, because it gives you a ‘grip’ on virtually all humanities and beyond. It also gives a ‘grip’ on understanding the world, including the basics of science. Phenomenology radically shook the positivistic self-confidence because it revealed the hidden assumptions of sciences and the process of constitution hidden at the source of perception. It is good to remember that no general perspective is given once and for all and will matter for all time. In a sense, all are true. Professor Ingarden believed that there is only one philosophy, The real philosophy! What I’m saying here doesn’t have to be a rejection of that. If there is one philosophy, then individual philosophies may be its views from different sides and, in part, I consider the entire history of philosophy as a complicated and perhaps also an infinite path to the truth; a philosophy of pure possibilities for the existence of the world is not enough! This is just a fragment of the path. I have impression that in today’s world fewer and fewer people think about philosophy in this way in the way you are talking about it. Probably yes, but there is nothing to complain about either. Especially studying at the Jagiellonian University. I myself worked at the University of Silesia for twenty years with an eight-year break between decades (I was fired during martial law) so I have a comparison. There was a time I could’ve joined the Jagiellonian University, because Ms. Dąmbska offered me an internship after I got my master’s degree in 1964. Ingarden was already retired at that time, and Ms. Dąmbska was staying because she was not at retirement age yet. But it was not easy, because Ms. Makota, Andrzej Półtawski were already dismissed… Ms. Gołaszewska behaved herself, well, she did have an inherently conflict-free personality. Władysław Stróżewski, still a doctor at the time, survived heroically, also thanks to the at­titude of Professor Jan Legowicz, who oversaw the Krakow philosophy in that turbulent period. It was fall of 1964… From October I could’ve started work at the Jagiellonian University. In the end no internships in philosophy were ever granted, and Ms. Dąmbska was soon removed, in a very ruthless and perfidious manner. Jan Szewczyk, who was an assistant lecture employed by Professor In­garden himself did remain there, but he was in constant political trouble. Then the Department of Marxist Philosophy was opened, that’s what the state-controlled philosophy at the AGH University of Science and Technology was called at the time. There are many situations in Poland today where people hate and blame each other, saying accusingly: “You worked in the Department of Marxist Philosophy and you defended Marxism […]”. Yes! I did! But you know, it was overthrowing the official version of Marxism and this was deadly dangerous. It was enough to be honest in substance with the ‘inappropriately’ chosen topic. Marxism in the communist era was exactly such a topic. Nobody ever explored these stories after the system changed, there’s only political squab­bling based on slogans and simplifications, on a shameful level! Józef Lipiec, was also employed in the Department at the same time as me, and later some younger graduates joined, including Adam Zagajewski and Wit Jaworski. I worked there for eight years and wrote a doctorate under Ingarden, and until June 1970, in other words, until his death, I regularly had academic contact with the Professor. To this day we have a problem whether or not to dive into those stories from communism times. These ‘stories’ are also our current history of philosophy. The post-war philoso­phy of labor (referred to after Brzozowski as Marxism) came into being for the truth, beyond any political situation, it was an expression of opposition and of Ingarden’s ethos. In addition, it is deeply rooted in our culture. It is Cieszkow­ ski, Dembowski, Kamieński and Brzozowski. It is also the Western European philosophy of praxis, and therefore also Marx. Although the beginning of this turn in European thinking, known as the philosophy of praxis, was Cieszkowski’s Prolegomena to Historiosophy published in German before Marx. Did Ingarden polemize with his students? I participated in almost all of Ingarden’s seminars. At one point a common one for two years of studies conducted by the Professor until my graduation. Fr. Józef Tischner attended them regularly as a PhD student under the Professor. He’d even attend after graduation. I can only remember that he and Jan Szewczyk polemicized with the Professor, although it was an option for all of us.The Pro­fessor was open to it. I remember reading various things, for example Locke and some text about language by Ajdukiewicz, from the volume Język i poznanie [Language and Cognition], at the end, we read Husserl’s Ideas, the first volume, which took us the longest to go through. Ms. Gierulanka then translated them. Of course, the original was the basis, because Professor did not tolerate reading only translations, it was unthinkable! Did everyone know German well enough then? Well, many did, many were learning. But we were also very immersed in this language thanks to the Professor. Ingarden always cited important concepts in the original language. Ms. Gierulanka, on the other hand, gave typescripts, bit by bit, when she translated Ideas and that was what we read at the seminar, plus the original. Because it is harder to only read the original and you would have to put in an unthinkable amount of effort earlier, preparing yourself. But we had this support of the translations and I remember how they were handed out, two, three pages at a time… But back then you could sit over half a page for a month… Because it was such a seminar where Ingarden only had two partners: Tischner and Szewczyk Jan Szewczyk, known primarily as a Marxist philosopher? Yes. Jan Szewczyk was Ingarden’s most talented student. And, above all, one of few authentic philosophers that appeared after the war. He had a very compli­cated biography in terms of the war and the uprising and he was in the Polish United Workers’ Party. He was the creator of the post-war philosophy of labor. In 1972 he published Filozofia pracy [Philosophy of labor] and then a few other books based on it. He was a beloved disciple of Ingarden. He was Tischner’s friend. When Tischner delivered a homily about death at the Church of St. Anne in Krakow, Szewczyk talked on the same topic at the University, only from a non-religious point of view. This essay is included in the Philosophy of Labor. He knew what he was writing about, because he lost his wife in an airplane ac­cident over Zawoja. Irena Tetelowska, who was an associate of Professor Zenon Klemensiewicz, who also died in the tragedy. So Szewczyk also had a personal ‘incentive’ to write about death. Ingarden employed Szewczyk at the Jagiellonian University. Szewczyk wrote a PhD on Hume’s Theory of Causation under him. It is published in book form with Ingarden’s foreword. However, his habilita­tion efforts in the philosophy of labor were thwarted. I got to the documents. An orthodox Marxist of inquisitive inclinations, a very primitive philosopher, professor of the party, Jarosław Ładosz, was used for this. Szewczyk was force to move to Warsaw, to the newly opened East-West Relations Research Center, where he became deputy director for academic affairs. But earlier, when all his classes in faculties other than philosophy at the Jagiellonian University were taken away, he lectured at the AGH University of Science and Technology like I did. Extraordinary stories of unusual people. Tishner and Szewczyk was a duet that attracted the most attention during the seminars. I know Szewczyk would visit Tischner in Łopuszna. I also remember my first meeting with Tischner. I remember this tiny corridor with a small table, where you would go out for a cigarette during the break.We were just leaving the Professor’s class, and some priest was leaning against that table. I sized him up with a scornful look, from head to toe… Why? Well, because it was a sanctuary of Truth. Truth and only truth! What was a priest doing there?! He has dogma and things like that, so what was he there for? And Tischner never threw this childishness back in my face! Later, when we became friends, he’d visit us at home. In fact, I had a very religious aunt on the other side of the wall, and whenever Tischner came over, highlanders’ jokes could be heard in the entire apartment. And you know that these jokes were not very elegant in terms of language… and my poor aunt could not understand that it was the same priest who can speak so gracefully in the church. Tishner’s jokes and anecdotes were always very witty! And wise. I remember that when asked why he didn’t take the Vatican’s offer after Wyszyński’s death and become Primate of Poland (which was talked about in Krakow), he answered: “Because when they called from the Vatican I wasn’t home […]”! There were also Sunday meetings at Tischner’s before the famous 1 p.m. mass at the Church of St. Anne. As for Szewczyk’s contacts with Tischner, whenever the issue Husserl came up in Ingarden’s seminars they would always agree. Szewczyk wrote a critical review of Ingarden’s book, a record of the Professor’s lectures in Oslo, supplemented with beautiful recollections of his times with the Professor – Wstęp do fenomenologii Edmunda Husserla [Introduction to the Phenomenology of Edmund Husserl]. This review came out a few months after Szewczyk’s death, published by Znak [Catholic Publishing – tr. note]. It was probably because of Tischner’s influence. Szewczyk made some scandalous political mistakes before he concluded that the system was irreformable. In the fall of 1961 at a symposium in Zakopane, we met professors from Warsaw, who were already more than capable to politically enlighten us. It was Leszek Kołakowski and Bronislaw Baczko. They were very critical about Szewczyk and about what Ingarden was hatching in Krakow at the time, in general. The same happened a year later, at the symposium in Bukowina Tatrzańska. Professor Ingarden came to both. Back to Ingarden, do any situations related to him stand out in your memories? I remember two special moments especially well: we were reading the work of Kazimierz Ajdukiewicz from Language and Cognition, when Professor Ajdukie­wicz died. Ingarden came, stood before us and said that he couldn’t continue. We also stood, and the tension was overwhelming. The Professor was holding the book and looking at us. There were tears in his eyes. After a while he sat down and read on. And it was a reading which completely fell apart in terms of coherence… Ingarden was an unbelievable master of analyzing texts, it was a superhuman ability! I would like to talk about when he was saying goodbye to us after his last class in June 1963. He was retiring. It was a very difficult moment for us, sor­rowful, emotional. “I’m not saying goodbye, I’m crying,” he said, taking our faces in with eyes full of tears. Leaning towards us, he suddenly hit the table really hard with the huge bouquet he got from us. The abruptly direct closeness, the sincerity” sorrow that he is leaving. It was earth-shattering! What kind of teacher was Ingarden? Did he help actively or “by not disturb­ing”? Did he point his students in the right direction? Professor Ingarden believed that it is not the point, for someone to profess someone else’s views! It was all about independent thinking! It was unthinkable to go to him and say: “Professor, I would like to write a master’s thesis under your supervision, please give me a subject […]”. It would be impossible to see him more incredulous than after hearing something like that. Everyone had to have their own subject, something that interested them. This, you know, was a small environment, a small group of people for the size of the University, but it was such a faculty – as long as Ingarden and Ms. Dąmbska were there – that no one would go to professors to be assigned a subject! I went to the Professor with this work on the metaphor of mine also because its backbone was his language theory from his book On Literary Works. It was very special how Ingarden would point the way to his students. Al­though I can only speak for myself in all cases. For example, with Szewczyk it was always a polemic. Likewise, for Tischner. Ingarden was never a teacher who pulls by the sleeve in the desired direction. He worked facing his students, so to speak… The seminars were also Professor’s monologues. He would publicly think out loud. As we read Locke, that Locke came alive. Because it was not the history of philosophy as it is usually understood. Ingarden, if he was a historian of philosophy at all, was always problem oriented. For him, there was always a historical issue that was stated, for example in antiquity and continued in the following centuries. It was always some problem and he would constantly be looking for solutions. So, there were those interludes in our seminar when In­garden would elaborate on the problem ‘live’, in front of of us. It was this way of teaching… It was not strictly teaching; it was transforming people. It occurred to me, because one time I commented on something I didn’t like about the studies in a conversation with Tischner, and he said: “I saw how you were all changing”, so it was really a transformation of people… how he did this I don’t know… It was elusive when it happened! At the same time, he never required anyone to share his views. There was no such aspect of the matter at all. If you said or wrote something, you had to be able to justify it, it had to be consistent. Ingarden actually taught consistency. And he taught passion. Because he revealed his passion to us every time. He was a man of passion. For example, Ms. Dąmbska lacked this quality. She was very reliable, well educated, with a background in ancient languages and so on, but her classes were not exciting for me. They bored me a little. Even though I practically revered Professor Dąmbska, she was a living, breathing image of academic and life integrity. What were the student’s relationships with Ingarden like? I remember how Szewczyk asked us the other Ingarden’s students: “why are you cowering from him so much?”. We were intimidated. Szewczyk was another matter, because he was an adult man who started studying almost at the age of thirty. He was a Warsaw Uprising insurgent who crawled in the sewers, helmet permanently falling over his eyes, because he was only fourteen at the time. Then taken from Pruszków to Germany for involuntary labor, from there through Italy to England. In England, in turn, terrible hunger among ordinary soldiers, so a group led by Szewczyk attacked a store. And Szewczyk went to prison for shooting a policeman, where he got his GCE. He met there with the leftist West and returned to Poland because his homeland was socialist. And it took some time before he saw how it really was… Back then hardly anyone knew about the gulags. Besides, the East-West Relations Research Center established in Warsaw at the beginning of the seventies, although it was founded only for a moment, and then destroyed with all its books and materials, he gave us full access to Western literature for a moment in the Gomułka–Gierek transition period. Whatever we’d asked for what we would get. That’s where we broadened our horizons, where we’d get all our readings, where Szewczyk got his. In any case, around that time Solzhenitsyn’s books began to pour in. And Szewczyk, known as a fighter for the shape of Marxism and considered a political activist on the side of the communists, had entered the radical opposition. And so we did it together a little. I was in Katowice. It was 1973-74. In February 1975, in all likelihood, Szewczyk was murdered in a staged accident. It was almost certainly a political murder. He had established contacts in the workers’ environment, and at that time Solidarność [Solidarity] was already ripening, culminating in incidents in Radom and Ursus in 1976. Szewczyk was extremely dangerous to the authorities. His funeral took place in the Warsaw Uprising quarters at the Powązki cemetery, was full of terror, surrounded by security services. With lightning storm to add to the scene. Tischner gave a moving sermon which was later printed, I don’t remember where. My students, with whom Szewczyk had a meeting two weeks earlier at the University of Silesia, also came to the funeral. He’d impressed them in that meeting. Andrzej Półtawski also came to the funeral, from Krakow. Szewczyk was also one of those for whom Ingarden was an authority. Yes. Szewczyk considered studying under Ingarden a unique opportunity given to him. Although he did not share his views, especially about Husserl, the Pro­fessor was Szewczyk’s Master. An undisputed one! You can read as much in the afterword to the Philosophy of Labor which he wrote after the Professor’s death. Did you have any closer contact with Ingarden? Of course. I’d visit the Professor at his place on Biskupi Square. I remember that he was so far on a different level from me that it created a psychological distance in me. It did not result from the Professor’s attitude, rather from my inhibitions. Each visit was an experience for me. I was very shy and for a long time I had difficulty expressing myself. And Szewczyk did not have such inhibitions. He’d seen enough of the world to know what he wanted and was as open and spon­taneous as Ingarden. Two true philosophers had met… Was Ingarden aware of his significance? Did he let you, the students, sense it? I should give you a more accurate account of my two dissertations written under Ingarden. The first was, of course, my master’s thesis. I worked hard all year, I read tons of literature, I struggled and suffered, and I could not finish it at all. I even thought that I would not graduate… So I lived in this drama and finally, when the Professor asked me about it (because it was the fall of 1963 and he wanted to close the case at the University), I collected all these scribbles, the loose pages I’d written, all my notes from the literature on the subject, I put them in a file and took it to him. I said then, “See Professor, I am working”. And he replied he would look through all that, and arranged to meet up with me soon after. I came and he said to me: “Miss, this is RUBBISH. I know how to solve it, but I won’t tell you, because I will take away your joy. You will figure it out on your own”. Well, I was still struggling. There was even a moment that I was in so much despair, that I put everything I wrote in a furnace to be burnt… And a friend of mine I mentioned already, Joanna Turowicz-Piasecka came over and saw me in this state and seeing what I did, she started to take it out of the furnace and smoothed out the pages. It was the peak of my despair. And then it suddenly dawned on me, I suddenly felt that “I got…”, because I could not say yet what I got, but I already knew that I got back on the horse. After verbalizing the ‘discovery’, all the collected material sorted itself out, all that remained was for it to be written down. Well, so I went to talk to the Professor. The Professor’s room had a desk behind which he’d usually sit while talking, and there was an armchair next to the desk. Whenever the conversation was going to quickly be over with, the Professor sat at the desk, and when he’d decide on a longer one, he’d sit in the armchair. And when I said, “Professor, I got it! This has to be relativized to the context!”, he happily confirmed and moved to the armchair, and I told him everything in order. And he was happy as a child! He was almost literally jumping for joy in that chair of his! Well, now show me another teacher like that… He was a special Professor. Ingarden was great. And in my case, it was great that did not take away my joy with this master’s thesis I am still grateful to him for that. It was perhaps the most important moment in my intellectual life. Because the later work on the monograph on Brzozowski’s philosophy was a completely different kind of work. I have to add that Ingarden was always very concerned with us. He almost con­sidered us his children! I remember that when he retired, I’d visit him to his last days, because I was working on a doctorate. And then when I’d come, his wife would say, “Please come! Come more often!”. He lived for us and cared about us, there is no doubt about it. So, let’s go back to your doctoral dissertation for a bit. What was the topic? The topic was Pojęcie pracy w filozofii Stanisława Brzozowskiego [The Concept of Labor in Philosophy of Stanisław Brzozowski]. It’s a monograph on this philosophy, I published it years ago under Wydawnictwo Literackie. When I was writing my doctorate I was already, I can say, infected by Szewczyk, and trying to build the foundations at the AGH University of Science and Technology. Young engineers going out into the world… Maybe they would finally bring about this reform, the socialist one, of course. I am leftist to this day, though rather in a social-democratic fashion. Coming back to my master’s thesis, as it is very important, when the Professor read it afterwards, he did not write any notes in the margins, he only drew small, horizontal lines. It meant that I need to reconsider those parts. And it was also a source of satisfaction if you actually figured out his point of view, what he had in mind while drawing the line… And then when it comes to my doctoral thesis, the Professor already gave some notes, his remarks appeared in the margins. And we discussed it, although my subject was quite foreign to Professor. But he reacted with interest! He did, of course, read Brzozowski once. He told me that one time, when he was travelling to Lviv, the train broke down and he stayed overnight in a little hotel in some town. And since he had then freshly released Ideas on him, he read them. And in the Ideas, he lent me, because then Brzozowski’s books were not yet readily available and had to be hunted for, including his copy of the Ideas, in one place on the margins he wrote down “LOONY!”. Although in my opinion Brzozowski was the most insightful Polish philosopher when it comes to philosophical intuition The second phenomenology does not have any disciples in the modern world. And this is, going back yet again to the problem of Tischner and Szewczyk, that it was the philosophy of pure possibilities for the existence of the world, and they sought for human and existential issues in it. That was what they cared about. Both one and the other. And participation in the life of society! So they effectively parted ways, and it began with a dispute over Husserl, and here I would point to Szewczyk, because in Tischner’s case it was actually just one work, touching upon the Husserl-Ingarden subject, and Szewczyk, in addition to two review papers, wrote a book about it. On the Philosophy of Edmund Husserl posthumously published in a niche publishing house, hardly anyone ever heard of it. But of course, Tischner wrote and said many times: I did not take anything from Ingarden’s philosophy, but he was a Master for me. And now you understand why Ingarden is the Master for all his students… It’s not because he forced us to profess his philosophy. Of course, he had a lecture on ethics which he combined with the subject of causality, he then wrote the third volume of the Controversy Over the Existence of the World, and it was also an analysis of relatively isolated systems. Well, but how did it relate to life there and then? Things were happening, problems were growing, we were at the tail end of Europe, science was being destroyed, everything was being destroyed… Repressions are ever greater, stealthy murders of unruly workers, and here, on the other side – relatively isolated systems… No disrespect to the systems, of course, because it is a great theoretical problem. But I’ve never had a more intense ‘workout’ than I got by reading Ingarden’s books… Well, in the end, it’s good to learn on texts that have that ridiculously high level. Yes, such texts are always a challenge and exercise for a young person’s brain. Can we return to the subject of your doctorate? Since you were writing it after ‘Ingarden’s school’, it was probably easier for you? The doctoral dissertation was completely different kind of work from the mas­ter’s thesis. It was an analysis and synthesis of Brzozowski’s highly complex texts. Whenever I brought over new parts of it, the Professor would put my manuscript on the closet by the wall on the right side of his desk and say: “See… already thick! getting thicker!” And one day I’d found him with the typescript in one hand, and Brzozowski’s Ideas in the other and asked: “Oh, Professor, you’re read­ing Brzozowski?” And he said: “Well, I have to check if you can read!”. So, the problem of the analysis of texts, in other words the problem of reading skills. He taught it in his seminars. He didn’t only draw people in with his ‘live’ thinking, though, as I said, he’d think out loud and ‘live’ in front of us, and always seemed so full of life in those moments. He was the youngest man I knew at those times! And it remained that way until the end of his life in 1970. But returning to the doctorate, he gave me back two chapters with com­mentary and I had to think about it over the holidays, and finish the third one. The procedure for my PhD had been opened for some time at that point, so we were supposed to finalize it after the holidays. Unfortunately Professor suddenly died… I found out a few days after the last conversation with him that the Pro­fessor was unconscious at the clinic. Tischner was with him around the clock… Tischner was always there with everyone who was leaving this world. He was with Ms. Dąmbska too, when she died… The Professor never regained consciousness… For me it was like somebody struck me in the head with a bat… Then, with Stróżewski, we were wondering what now, because Ingarden could no longer be listed as the one who accepted the dissertation anymore. And so, we came up with Mr. Leszczyński, who helped everyone who needed it. Jan Leszczyński was a very kind man, he said he didn’t know much about the subject, but that he would help bring the procedure to a favorable end. And so, I defended the thesis without Professor Ingarden there. So, Ingarden was not only a good educator, great thinker but also an ex­traordinary man? All of these terms apply to him I remember that once in a relaxed conversation with us, his students, he said that someone saying that he was teaching them would have offended him! Because everyone learns alone! Another person can only help them. But I received one more tip from Ingarden on my doctoral thesis which I haven’t shared yet. And that was at the very beginning before I ever started with the procedure. When I was reading, I had a ‘house of notes’, a huge amount of notes from Idea, from Legenda Młodej Polski [The Legend of Young Poland] it was studied, thought over, but I struggled a lot, because it was difficult to reconstruct the entirety of these thousands of threads scattered throughout the texts. That was when the Professor told me: “Then write the outline first, as if you were writing a table of contents”. After a while, he added: “Whenever you feel inspired”. Well, the inspiration came one day, and I wrote such a list, including chapter titles, and this became the final structure of my work. That’s what he taught me, that I should put my thoughts down in writing. When you read and concepts appear in your mind, they remain at the level of ‘thoughts’… Until they are written down, these are ‘fantasy thoughts’… so he’d say: ‘fantasy thoughts’. Do you remember ‘Thursday evenings’ at Ingarden’s? I never took part in them. It seems that Woleński was there, Perzanowski too. I don’t know much, because at that time I was not interested in issues related to the Professor’s philosophy. I was already overwhelmed by Brzozowski, the philosophy of labor. Basically nobody told me about those afternoon meetings. I found out after the fact. It seems that it was the older generation, those who taught us. Tischner probably showed up there sometimes… But it was mainly the Ingardenists, and I was already quite far from that. Can you tell what was Ingarden’s attitude to socialist realism, specifically to socialrealist art? I would say that none. The Professor held meetings in the Krakow section of aesthetics of the Polish Philosophical Society, which I attended, where professors and artists talked and I don’t recall this word being brought up once. Similarly, Marxism in the history of contemporary philosophy. I remember how the Pro­fessor said: “there were two authors who wrote together, but it is not known which one wrote what, so I won’t lecture you on it”. So we didn’t have any read­ings from Marxism during our studies. And so, I wondered what was really in there. Already during the talks on the contents of my doctoral dissertation, the Professor said that if anywhere in Marxism, it is in Engels’s Dialectics of Nature that some philosophy exists. I owe seeing another philosophical option in Marx, the transcendental option, to young Marx’s Manuscripts, Brzozowski and my two great classmates – Szewczyk and Tischner. Tischner was familiar with the Manuscripts, just like Karol Wojtyła was. Already as a pope, he expressed this in the encyclical Laborem Exercens. Did Ingarden have a sense of humor? Did he have any funny sayings? ‘Ciućka’. That’s how sometimes he would call his white, shaggy, lovely dog. I think the dog’s name was Dżok. No, I don’t know what his official name was. He spoke about him like that. He would come to work with him, leave his in the office and come to the lecture. And you’d often see him with a dog on a leash walking around Biskupi Square or Planty. And women in Ingarden’s life? He photographed them, that’s for sure. Ingarden took very nice pictures indeed. I think he also photographed Halina Poświatowska… She studied in our year, from the third year on. She previously studied philosophy in America. She stayed there after undergoing heart surgery that saved her life. The boys from philosophy department loved her, would line up to her.This aura of fragility of her existence and that beauty of hers… She died very young after a second heart surgery… So, he probably also photographed Halina because who wouldn’t take pictures of her. He photographed me as well, I got two copies from him. I don’t know anything else about women in Ingarden’s life, I never dealt with gossip, and from the past at that. Do you remember any anecdotes related to Professor Ingarden? I don’t know if this will count as an anecdote, but I remember that he sent me a letter once, when I was already working on my doctorate: “You haven’t dropped by for a long time, and I am getting paid here and someone might accuse me of procrastinating for money!”. I remember that I felt sorry that he had to be concerned by it, but he had every right. Even if he was already retired, the supervisors were paid. And that’s the one letter what I received from him. Ingarden as a teacher and Ingarden as a human being. What was he like? Ingarden was a man of great scientific passion. He revolved in the very heart of European philosophy. He was a student of a philosopher who influenced all of modern philosophy. And if I were to use the word genius, it would be for Husserl. Professor Ingarden was a great philosopher for me! As for the level of his work, he was equal to the greatest contemporary philosophers. He made his original contribution to philosophy! He infected us with phenomenology, although his formal ontology in writing is not that phenomenological. According to Husserl, Ingarden has never carried out a phenomenological reduction! As Husserl wrote, and as Ingarden often told us, for Husserl reduction-initiated phenomenology, gave access to it. It was a fundamental and necessary transformation of the way of seeing the world. I’m not sure if I ever experienced this, but while studying and translating Husserl, I developed a sensitivity to the openness of the descriptive method. I would say, probably in too simple terms, that reduction is seeing the world through the medium of consciousness, and phenomenology is describing the ‘work’ of consciousness. Szewczyk said that he experienced reduction and that it gave him a ‘kick of power’. Maybe Tischner did too. Tishner wrote his doctoral thesis and habilitation on Husserl. Phenomenology is also a need for a vivid experience, contact with the direct object of experience… And that’s what the Professor would fascinate us with, not the final results arrived at by different researchers, including him, but this manner of thinking. And the integrity of thinking! In Emmanuel Levinas’s book Discovering Existence with Husserl and Heidegger, which I translated, there’s an essay on the phenomenological method. It was a completely anti-speculative philosophy that wouldn’t tolerate intellectual constructions and unconscious assumptions. Ingarden taught us this at his lively seminars when he went from the text to his own reflection on the subject. But there was a rupture between the spirit of teaching and his works… Because the Controversy Over the Existence of the World, even its third part, lacks that living spirit of phenomenology for me. And On Literary Works had that spirit. For me, personally, that is Ingarden’s most phenomenological work. Ingarden also liked to ‘tie off’ his reflection following the theory itself. That would be him as a scholar… And as a human being? Is it even possible to separate…? It was his life; his work was his life. He was certainly a caring father, he created a harmonious marriage, he was interested in his sons’ lives, he would mention them in lectures… Although it also happens that in the homes of great scholars’ children are the ones to get the short end of the stick, because there is never time for them. I don’t know anything else, because I was just a student. Though I would, of course, visit at his home, sometimes scared of my own shadow. As Szewczyk said: “What, why are you cowering from him so much?”. A man and a teacher are ultimately inseparable. Władysław Stróżewski Biographical note Władysław Stróżewski (born June 8, 1933, Krotoszyn) interests: ontology, metaphysics, aesthetics, human philosophy, philosophy of values During the German occupation, he studied using secret sets of books and at the Deutsche Schule für Polnische Kinder in Krotoszyn. In 1946 he started learning in the Secondary School in Krotoszyn and then in the High School in Koźmin. In the years 1952-1955 he was a student at the Catholic University of Lublin. Professional career He started his professional career in 1956 in Lublin (CUL), and a year later he was employed at the Department of the History of Philosophy of the Jagiello­nian University, headed by I. Dąmbska. Here he also received the position of an assistant professor (1960), then associate professor (1970) and professor (1984). He was the Director of the Institute of Philosophy (1984-1987), Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy and History (1987-1991) and, after reorganization, Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy (1992-1993). Parallel to his work at the Jagiello­nian University, he taught philosophy and aesthetics at the Academy of Music in Krakow, the Academy of Catholic Theology in Warsaw (1964-1965), at the Doctoral College of the Academy of Music in Warsaw (1984-1987), at the Col­lege of Philosophy of the Dominican Collegium in Krakow, annual lectures on aesthetics at the Academies of Music in Gdańsk and Katowice. He was the head of College for New Europe, part of the International Cultural Center. He was appointed full professor in 1992. Academic career In 1955 he defended his master’s thesis (Philosophy of Being in “De Divinis Nominibus” by Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita, supervisor S. Świeżawski), and in 1958 his doctoral dissertation (Basics of the Theory of Transcendental Beauty, su­pervisor M. Krąpiec). In 1968, he obtained his habilitation at the Jagiellonian University on the basis of a dissertation On the History of the Issues of Negation, which was reviewed by R. Ingarden, T. Czeżowski and J. Legowicz. He completed several international scholarship and study trips. In 1974 he received a scholarship at McGill University, and in the 1980-1981 academic year he received a scholarship from The Catholic University of America, Washington D.C. In the years 1986-1988 he received a scholarship from the Lanckoronski Foundation in London and Rome. In 1989 he received a scholarship from the Kosciuszko Foundation in New York. In 1991 he received the scholarship of Her­zog August Bibliothek in Wolfenbeuttel in Germany, and in 1994 the scholarship of the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna. He lectured at the International Academy of Philosophy in Irving, Texas (1981) and at the University of Wiscon­sin-Stevens Point (1990). He took part in the Science-Religion-History seminars organized in Castel Gandolfo by John Paul II (1986, 1988, 1995, 1997, 1999). Organizational activity. Honors Stróżewski belonged and belongs to many committees, scientific councils and editorial offices. In the years 1960-1968 he belonged to the editorial staff of the monthly Znak [Sign], Przegląd Filozofczny [Philosophical Review], Studia Estetyczne [Aesthetic Studies], Sztuka i Filozofia [Art and Philosophy], Logos i Etos [Logos and Etos], Aura. He co-edited the Myśli i Ludzie [Thoughts and People] book series published by Wiedza Powszechna [Universal Knowledge]. He reactivated Kwartalnik Filozoficzny [Philosophical Quarterly], becoming its editor-in-chief. In addition, he belonged or belongs to many organizations and scientific societies: Polish Academy of Learning (active member), Polish Philosophical Society (chairman since 1990), Polish Semiotics Society, Scien­tific Society of the Catholic University of Lublin, Committee of Philosophical Sciences of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Société Internationale pour l'Étude de la Philosophie Médiévale, International Society for Metaphysics, Council for Research in Value and Philosophy, International Academy of Philosophy (Liechtenstein), PEN Club, the Polish Writers’ Association. Stróżewski is a laureate of several awards for scientific achievements: he was twice awarded the 2nd degree Individual Ministerial Award of the Ministry of Science, Higher Education and Technology (1982, 1984); 2nd degree Team Award of the Ministry of National Education (1990) and the Individual Award of the Ministry of National Education (1994); Award of the 1st Faculty of Social Sciences of the Polish Academy of Sciences (1982); Award of the Alfred Jurzykowski Foun­dation in New York. He was awarded the Knight’s Cross of the Order of Polonia Restituta, the Gold Cross of Merit, the Medal of the National Education Com­mission and the Golden Badge for Social Work for the city of Krakow. In 2003 he was awarded the honorary doctorate of the Jagiellonian University, and in 2009, on the 50th anniversary of obtaining the doctoral degree, he was redecorated. Research Stróżewski pursued his research interests in two ways: through problem analyses of the most important philosophers and of the most important concepts. Con­sequently, he is recognized as an outstanding expert on: Plato, Saint Thomas, G.W. Hegel, E. Husserl and R. Ingarden. The result of the second approach is a deep reflection from various perspectives (metaphysical, anthropological, axiological) devoted to the problems of arche, entity, existence, metaphysics, dialectics, negation, nothingness, value, beauty, goodness, creativity. In his research he used the phenomenological method, which in the first period he defined dialectically, and in the second analytically. The features of the first are: faithfulness to experience, control of its validity and the obtained results, lack of dogmatic approach to issues,‘transcending’ cognitive results as a result of double focus: on new research approaches and on returning to the starting point with the wisdom of the acquired knowledge. This dialectic method is in fact a movement in the hermeneutic circle where the cognitive situation is constantly enriched. The second phenomenology was an enhancement of the first, referred to the descriptive postulates of Descartes. The purpose was to detect the most fundamental moments, primary factors of the studied object, which allowed the possible relationships which it can enter into thanks to its essence to be considered. In aesthetic studies, he invoked the great spiritual masters of the past and the present, both philosophers and artists. That is where he found inspirations and tips for his own original thoughts and analyses. The most important ones included the issues of creativity, the function of art, the cognitive status of artistic expression, the interpretation of the truthfulness of art, truth as a manifestation, and aesthetic and supraesthethic values. Selected publications: •. Istnienie i wartość [Existence and Value]. Krakow: Znak 1982. •. Dialektyka twórczości [Dialectics of Creativity]. Krakow: PWN 1983. •. W kręgu wartości [In the Circle of Values]. Krakow: Znak, 1992. •. Wykłady o Platonie. Ontologia [Lectures on Plato. Ontology]. Krakow: Uni­wersytet Jagielloński, 1992. •. Istnienie i sens [Existence and Sense]. Krakow: Znak, 1994. •. O wielkości. Szkice z filozofii człowieka [About Size. Sketches of Human Philosophy]. Krakow: Znak, 2002. •. Wokół piękna. Szkice z estetyki [Around Beauty. Sketches of Aesthetics]. Krakow: Universitas, 2002. •. Ontologia [Ontology]. Krakow: Aureus and Znak, 2004. Władysław Stróżewski “…there is some philosophical spark in every person…” Interview conducted by Dominika Czakon and Paulina Tendera Professor, we will start with a question about the picture that we can see above your armchair. It’s Professor Roman Ingarden. Do you consider him as your Master? Yes. I consider Ingarden to be one of my most important masters. Admittedly, he was not my first master because I had others before, but he fascinated me as soon as I came across his writings. The first thing of his I read during my studies was O poznawaniu dzieła literackiego [The Cognition of the Literary Work of Art]. Even before that I had the opportunity to take a look at the Controversy over the Existence of the World and I studied it very thoroughly later. This is one of the foundations I regularly return to, and the foundation of my way of thinking about philosophy and philosophical matters. I value the Controversy very much and I think that Jurek Perzanowski was right when he spoke about Ingarden as the Aristotle of our time. The Controversy is so full of important insights into fundamental philosophical problems that the comparison to Aristotle’s Metaphys­ics is indeed not unfounded here. Not to mention that other matters Ingarden was interested in could also somehow be measured up against Aristotle. Not in the sense of any resolutions, but in the sense of what they both dealt with and, above all, what they were passionate about. How you got interested in philosophy and what dictated the choice of studying it? It was the only thing I could do because I had no other abilities. I tried some music, I tried some painting, I tried to write some different things, and all these turned out poorly. However, when I went into philosophy, it seemed to me that this was it. And then I kept poking around in that philosophy: this problem, that problem, claritas, existence, a number of other things. Can you point out when your interest in philosophy started? The first decisions were made, if not in high school, then right after high school. I had an excellent teacher whom I repeatedly spoke about: Jerzy Klinger, with whom I had long, long day and night discussions while I was a student in Koźmin Wielkopolski. That’s when this interest in philosophy appeared, but also some­what in theology, began to crystallize so much that it wasn’t an issue for me to go to the Catholic University of Lublin [CUL] and start a normal, systematic study of philosophy there. Of course, it’s not like it all went smoothly, because I didn’t enter it straight after high school. I’d tried some other things, but eventually I ended up there. That’s another time Klinger appears, who simply drove me there; he had friends there and managed to enroll me in the university. Back then CUL was unbelievably crowded. There were probably several thousand students there, certainly a few hundred in philosophy itself. Yes, it was 1951 or 1952. A lot of people who, for various reasons including their background, could not get into other universities ended up at CUL. And it just so happened that CUL was a really great university at the time. There were several really outstanding and well-prepared thinkers, such as: Professor Świeżawski; Professor Kalinowski – the brother of that art historian from Krakow – Jerzy; a few excellent logicians; also, methodologists such as Jan Skamiński. There were many to study under. Soon after my first appearance as a student at CUL Krąpiec showed up, he first commuted from Krakow, and later resided permanently in Lublin. Wojtyła joined a little later. A circle of truly outstanding people grew by the month. And when I was leaving CUL with a master’s degree, and before my doctorate, it was Świeżawski, Krąpiec and Wojtyła who created the circle which would later come to be called the Lublin School. But this is another matter and this Lublin School probably didn’t exactly make a big name for itself. Nevertheless, something was left of it, and certainly CUL with its new perspective on Thomism, with the new, very contemporary, reading of Saint Thomas, cannot be forgotten in any discussion on the history of philosophy in Poland. It was also at CUL that I met Ingarden for the first time. The Polish Philosophical Society was also highly active at that time. I was not yet a member of the Society, because I was too young for it, but in Lublin the chairman of the branch was Professor Łubnicki. He was a professor of philosophy at the Maria Curie-Skłodowska University and, coincidentally, Ing­arden was invited two or three times to come to Lublin at that time. Certainly, once to the Philosophical Society, and at least twice by professors of CUL, including Professor Świeżawski, whom Ingarden knew very well from the Lviv times. I could then interact with Professor Ingarden as a human being, not just the as an author. Among the students there were several people fascinated by Ingarden. Above all, Antoni Stępień who knew Ingarden’s thought very well, and who had also travelled to Krakow for some talks with him. I accompanied him during one of those, and so we’d started our acquaintance when we were still students. And then a miracle occurred – that’s how it can be put – because the year 1956 came around with the so-called October and with it a complete turnabout in the attitude of the authorities towards non-Marxist philosophers. Until 1956, if you were not a Marxist, you’d actually have no rights to pub­lish or anything, and then the situation changed. The previously dismissed professors were allowed to return to universities. It was, among others, the Ossowskis, Ingarden and Dąmbska. I’m not sure whether Ajdukiewicz returned as well, but the Ossowskis did for sure. Kotarbiński somehow stayed at the university the entire time. Ingarden had returned to his professorial position at the Jagiellonian University and from 1957 he began to organize his Chair of Philosophy. At the same time, he decided to fill the professorial position in history of philosophy, to which he invited Professor Dąmbska. At that time she was in Gdansk and had two offers: to move to Krakow or to Poznan. However, the power of Ingarden’s persuasion won her over for Krakow. It was a very happy coincidence for me, because at the time I was already associated with the monthly Catholic magazine Znak. Were you already after your doctorate defense? Still before that, but after completing my MA studies. It was also a total coin­cidence, because the editor’s secretary then – Stefan Wilkanowicz, by a strange twist of fate had gone to a Catholic congress in San Salvador. It seemed that it would take a long time, and therefore it was necessary to name a replacement. Professor Świeżawski, who had excellent, friendly contacts with Znak and Ty­godnik Powszechny, a catholic weekly magazine, said that I would be fit for this position, and because I had dreamed of living in Krakow for a very long time. I started working at Znak. Back then Professor Andrzej Półtawski, now a long-time retired professor, played a big role in my future fate. This is a person whom you must also reach out to in relation to Ingarden, because he is the most im­portant. He and Gołaszewska. Somehow it turned out that Półtawski became an assistant lecturer Ingarden at the Chair of Philosophy. On the other hand, Dąmbska did not have one and some thought that I could possibly fit in as a student of Świeżawski – all in all, a historian of philosophy and Dąmbska’s very good friend. It was actually pro­posed to Ingarden. I remember that conversation with Ingarden who was still asking whether I would agree to go to Dąmbska. I, of course, agreed and this way I became an assistant lecturer at Jagiellonian University’s Faculty of Philisophy. My most important story begins now. My dream was to meet Ingarden as soon as possible and learn as much as possible from him – not only from his books, but also directly from the person himself. So, as soon as Ingarden became active in Krakow with his seminars and lectures, I’d just go to everything. And those were very important years for me. From the beginning, that is from 1957 to the moment when Ingarden retired. After 1963 until his death, our contact were very close. There was, for example, a custom that you’d go to the Professor’s name day celebrations, where, since it was February, you’d eat very tasty donuts and the Professor’s wife would serve excellent food and drinks. Back to my beginnings in Krakow philosophy, I studied everything – every­thing Ingarden did. I would listen in on everything of his except for the last lecture I never went to which now I regret it very much Ingarden began to lecture on the ethics. These lectures on ethics were also recorded and released. It was Węgrzecki who did it. The most important, however, were undoubtedly the previous lectures and seminars – fantastic seminars that Ingarden conducted similarly to Świeżawski. It was always an analysis of text. In this way, I managed to establish more direct contact with Professor. Also, thanks to the fact that he was the chairman of the Krakow branch of the Philosophical Society, and me and Andrzej Półtawski were also active in the Society. Andrzej as a treasurer, me initially as a librarian – although there were quite few books there – and then as the branch secretary. Do you remember what texts were read on the seminars? I remember quite well what was being analyzed. I do not know if I can name it one by one but we certainly read Principia by Descartes, we read Kant, we read Husserl’s Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology which had not been translated yet, but was only being translated by Gierulanka. We also read Hume, who bored us heartily, and another phenomenologist who bored us as well, but it was not Pfänder, it was… I can’t recall his name. Ingarden appreciated him very much, so we read him. The most interesting readings to me were those of Descartes, Kant and Husserl. Ingarden read them in the way a philosopher reads a philosopher. It was not just a simple recitation to understand what the source was about. He’d have his own questions, his own problems which he’d try to somehow settle in front of us and that was really fascinating. All the more, because the group of people at the seminar was also exceptional. That was when Tischner came along, there was also Jaś Szewczyk, there was Węgrzecki, there was Cichoń – each and everyone an incredibly wise person. Gierulanka who was actually sort of a silent assistant of Ingarden’s, who knew his philosophy very well, would also attend the seminar. Sometimes Fr. Popiel would also stop by. The discussions there were really very deep sometimes. Tischner’s participation in them was very lively, and Szewczyk’s probably even more than that. What was Ingarden’s attitude towards students? Did he have high demands? Ingarden did not really have particular requirements. It was just a joint opera­tion, and whoever spoke up would be heard out and the discussion would start – sometimes a better one, sometimes a worse one. For me the most interesting thing was that sometimes in those discussions we would try to get into the essence of things and figure something out, and Ingarden would usually speak at the end, and it was only then that it would start to feel right. It was not like he was showing off – God forbid! No, no, he’d just say what he thought about certain issues. Sometimes referring to the other debaters, sometimes not. It depended what substantive level the discussion had been on. The seminars were extremely important to me. I think I was probably learning the most in those. I had some practice, of course, from Świeżawski’s seminars which were conducted similarly, but Świeżawski was a historian of philosophy, after all, and completely different texts were studied in his classes. Besides the seminars, did Ingarden have any other compulsory classes for students? Yes. He had an “Introduction to Philosophy” during which he spoke a lot about language, he addressed certain issues in semantics – it was all very interesting. He had a separate lecture on ontology. He also had a lecture on aesthetics. As a matter of fact, he would present his own concepts in those. Wouldn’t that be a mark of a master? All the greats lectured on their concepts. Yes. Although in Ingarden’s case, very often it was his already published works. However, when you listened to the author, he’d always modify it a bit, or turn our attention to some specific issues and it was really valuable. Were these seminars of Ingarden’s popular among students? There weren’t very many students at the Institute. It was a dozen or so, at most just over twenty people a year. There were a lot of people at the Ingarden’s seminars, because some also came from outside of philosophy. For example, artists such as Jurek Świecimski, a painter who died relatively recently. Apparently, Penderecki also came, but I don’t remember him there. Penderecki mentioned it in the past. Yes, he admitted that he went to Ingarden’s lectures. Perhaps – either I did not notice him at the time, because I didn’t know him, or he attended rarely and irregularly. At some point, people from outside of Krakow would also come to these seminars. There was this married couple which unfortunately split later: Artur and Anita Szczepański. Artur was a physicist by profession, Anita specialized in philosophy and wrote a great book on Ingarden’s aesthetics. I can brag that Anita Szczepańska was my first doctoral student. By coinci­dence, in a way because she started under Ingarden, but then he passed away. Then Szczepańska chose me as a supervisor, it wasquite an honor for me, to take over after Ingarden. She wrote her doctoral thesis on the problem of ambiguity in art, darkness, ambiguity of style. I’m not sure whether it has been published. Perhaps some parts of it. It was very good, thoroughly thought out, with great examples she chose to refer to. Anita was a very intelligent and very pretty girl. You think that’s irrelevant? It’s very important. Would you like to talk about some particular stories related to Ingarden? I remember very interesting story in my opinion, which I would like to tell you about now. It was at a conference, probably organized under the patronage of the Philosophical Society, dedicated to medieval philosophy. Because it was a time when solid research on Polish medieval philosophy began, conducted mainly by Professor Świeżawski, or under his supervision, later joined by Pro­fessor Legowicz. Incidentally, the Pope of Marxist philosophy in Poland – Adam Schaff – allowed it. And this is yet another story of the role of various philosophers, including Marxist ones, for the development of Polish post-war philosophy. It was not straightforward, it was not just spoiling or destroying, but it was also, as in Schaff’s case – an explicit and enthusiastic agreement to establish the Institute of Medieval Philosophy at the Polish Academy of Sciences. And Professor Świeżawski had a big influence there, and one of the conferences devoted to medieval philosophy in Poland was held in Krakow. A group of people gathered around Professor Świeżawski, such as: Zosia Włodek, Władek Seńko, Juliusz Domański, Bartek Korolec and a few others, who were later joined even by such individuals as Półtawski and Gołaszewska (who also dealt with medieval philosophy for a while). This conference was devoted to Krakow philosophy, mainly based on medieval philosophical manuscripts available in the Jagiellonian Library which were only then properly catalogued. Before that, they were not described, and it wasn’t really clear what was in them. And please remember that these medieval texts were often written in such a way that in one cover or in one volume there was usually more than one treatise. So, it was not enough to glance at the covers to see what was there. Everything had to be thoroughly analyzed, because there were cases where something ended abruptly and, without any mark of it being the end, the principium of something else would suddenly start. It was only then that all of it was decently described, and it turned out that the Jagiellonian Library had all along possessed extremely interesting sources in medieval philosophy. It was possible to determine exactly which philosophical trends were repre­sented in Krakow, what our philosophers were doing here, and at the same time to revisit the greatest earlier researchers of medieval philosophy, those from the interwar period, primarily Birkenmajer and Fr. Michalski. It’s kind of funny story that I’m going to tell you and it involves Fr. Michalski When the conference was held, Michalski was no longer alive, but those younger researchers like Seńko, Domański, etc. often referred to his work and sometimes corrected his readings and interpretations. They pointed out that it may not have been quite as he concluded. After several voices saying that Michalski wrote on it in one way, but it should be another way, Ingarden lost his cool! He stood up and uttered an incredibly fervent defense of Michalski: that he had known him personally; that he was a great scholar; that it was impossible for him to make any such basic mistakes. I can’t remember the exact arguments, of course, but I know that it was an extremely passionate speech. Then Władek Seńko got up – one of these new, younger researchers, and began to intensively backpedal: that of course, they didn’t have any fundamental complaints about Michalski, God forbid, anything against his interpretations, but that it just sometimes happened that something had been written a bit differently in some manuscript than Michalski had read it. Which is not uncommon anyway in the case of medieval manuscripts. You know, a difference of a period is enough there. Even more so, since medieval paleography was based on abbreviations. Researchers of these things are perfectly able to decipher these abbreviations, but sometimes there may be some ambiguity: it could mean this, it could mean that. Here I cannot say at the moment whether this was the case for Michalski’s corrections, whether they referred to Michalski’s reading or something else. Nevertheless, some critical remarks were made and Ingarden flipped out, so to speak. He couldn’t stand it. Ingarden was a man who held the reliability and authenticity of philosophical work in the highest regard. It is evident in his works; he goes as far in depth as possible. Nothing is ever left aside. There is always an attempt to reach the final conclusions and the very root of each problem. Here, too, it was his scientific integrity making itself known. No one has the right to question Michalski. Do you remember Thursday evenings with Ingarden? Yes, but they all took place much later, at the end of Ingarden’s life. There weren’t many such things, from what I remember, and this concerned just a few students – those late students of philosophy – who didn’t have the opportunity to listen to lectures at the university. It seems that they asked Professor to conduct such seminars for them. I think Perzanowski was in that group, Waszczenko too… Waszczenko even wrote an extensive report on these seminars (or meetings, what do you call it?) which we then printed in Kwartalnik Filozoficzny [Philosophical Quarterly]. I don’t know if Węgrzecki was there although Kowal was there for sure. And I know that they – I didn’t participate in it – met and mainly discussed ideas. Now I regret that I didn’t get into it, because it could have been done, and the issue of ideas is extremely important. Ingarden himself claimed that it had not yet been resolved in his research on ideas. Did Ingarden have favorite works of art or was he involved in what was happening in art? He had some favorites. As for literature, there is no doubt that he had his favorites. He liked Mann very much, he appreciated Rilke a lot. Rilke was his favorite, beloved poet. When it comes to Polish writers, writers of Young Poland were probably the closest to his heart. It’s not like he would flaunt it, but even in some of his texts, you can notice some kind of, maybe not an emotional lining, but emotional intelligence. This became the emotional glow of some of his texts. Take, for example, the ending of the text Człowiek i jego czas [Man and Time]. You could even say that it resembles Brzozowski. If you take a look at what Ingarden himself worked on, what things he elaborated on, for example when he discussed the layers of a literary work, he discussed the First Crimean Sonnet. Professor, who is your favorite poet? Similarly to Ingarden, I appreciate Rilke, but I’d be lying if I said that I under­stood him completely. Among older poets Norwid would be my favorite, Leśmian, and a few others. I simply enjoy Polish poetry. I even wrote a little myself. But I don’t know if Ingarden liked Norwid, probably not particularly. I think he’d rather appreciate Mickiewicz and Słowacki. It’s much easier to talk about who his favorite composers and painters were. When it comes to music, it was prob­ably just like for everybody else, Bach was in first place, but he also worshipped Beethoven. Sometimes he’d play Beethoven himself, and he’d do it well. Chopin too, because without Chopin, it is impossible to live in Poland at all, up until Szymanowski. I’m not sure how much he knew of later Polish music. I don’t think he knew Lutosławski at all. Perhaps Penderecki’s name would ring a bell for him. But when he’d talk about music and listen to examples, it’d begin and end with Szymanowski, he liked Szymanowski immensely. The Fountain of Aretuza was a song he would eagerly return to. And when it comes to painting, it would, again, be great painting: Rembrandt, especially his portraits. I remember that he’d often refer to a self-portrait from the Frick Collection in New York. I also tried to get to this portrait when I was there, and I could confirm what Ingarden said about it was true. He also highly regarded and liked French Impressionists. He was fascinated by the colors used in these paintings, he expressed regret that the colors were fading. He had been to Paris a few times and said that his last visit, compared to the previous ones, showed that these paintings were turning a little gray. He claimed that this was due to the fact that the Impressionists used cheap lead paints, unlike Baroque artists who mixed paint themselves. And the tube for the lead paint was also lead. I’m sure conservators will find a way to deal with it. Did Ingarden accept socialist realism in art? Absolutely not. However, he became very interested in abstract painting. He even wrote a paper on the subject. A very good one, where Ingarden shows that there is an abstract picture in every picture, when you take into account its design and structure. It was one of Ingarden’s lectures which I was also lucky enough to listen to with art historians By the way, Ingarden highly appreciated Professor Taranczewski, Paweł’s father, Wacław. He even analyzed Taranczewski’s series of paintings which consisted in Taranczewski extracting a single motif from a previous painting, whether it be a motif, a thread or some qualitative set, and carried it over to the next work as its starting point. And so on. There’s a lot of images in each series, i.e. Little Cellist, there is Still Life with a Blue Jug. Did Ingarden show any interest in the art of film? I never talked to Professor about the film. Maybe there just wasn’t an opportunity. He was interested in it had his own ideas regarding film. Did Ingarden talk about what he was working on? At the time I met him, he was still working on the issue of causality which appeared in the third volume of the Controversy. After that he dealt with some issues of aesthetics and the philosophy of values in general. In my time he created an essay, which was first a lecture, What We Don’t Know about Values which I consider to be absolutely fundamental to philosophy. Then came Phe­nomenological Aesthetics: An Attempt at Defining Its Range. A big dissertation, in my opinion, cannot be brought to absolute perfection, but there was an attempt. And finally, an important treatise on the ancient models of perfection. This one is extremely important and I had the opportunity to listen to it, not to mention in German (back then I didn’t always understand everything very well); the lecture took place in the Bishop’s Palace in Krakow. There was a moment when these two gentlemen approached each other. Ingarden was not a man especially fascinated by religion, it is evident in Edith Stein’s letters to him, as she accuses him of not having any idea what religion really is. However, respect for people like Wojtyła was evident in Ingarden. No disregard, no question about it, just the opposite. Did Ingarden have a sense of humor? I think he did. It was nothing extreme, no big “ha, ha, ha”, but he could appre­ciate a good joke. Can you remember Ingarden’s dog? Of course, the dog’s name was Dżok. He was very faithful, and Ingarden claimed he was very clever. Whenever Professor would finish writing a letter and seal the envelope, Dżok would already be under the desk waiting for him to put his collar on and go for a walk to the post office. Do you remember your female colleagues from philosophy studies? I had several female friends from my Lublin days. There was one very smart one – or in any case, she was thought to be, Franciszka Wilczek – who wrote her doctoral dissertation under Krąpiec. A very well-researched and wise one, but somewhat dictated by Krąpiec, about the concept of being in Thomas Aquinas’s and Duns Scotus’s philosophy. It was a complete contrast between the two philosophical theories. Franciszka was well prepared, she came from Silesia, she knew German well. There was also another very interesting girl, whom I knew briefly, because fascinated by Krąpiec, she joined the Dominican Nuns and disappeared. There was also Maryla Szafarkiewicz, but among my later classmates the most outstanding one was undoubtedly Elżbieta Wolnicka, who you surely know of, because she is a great figure. She wrote several excellent books, she also dealt with the philosophy of art, philosophy of culture, she would come to Krakow, to Znak, where she lectured on the philosophy of culture. I liked Elżbieta very much, we became good friends. She also painted, she had graduated the Academy of Fine Arts in Sopot, which was where she came from. Easy to notice as a character, because she was tiny. We called her Agata. Recollections about her were published in Znak, I had intended to write something myself, but in the end I didn’t. She sticks out the most in my memories, she was such a cordial, philosophical friend of mine in every way. When I commuted to Lublin in the 1970s or earlier in the 1960s for classes on aesthetics and seminars in philosophy of art I conducted, Elżbieta was always with me, so these seminars were really conducted by the both of us. And she had excellent ideas and knew art very well, also these seminars were probably quite decent. And here in Krakow there were the early students of Ingarden, namely Gołaszewska and Danuta Gierulanka. I appreciate Danuta very much. Gołaszewska too, in a sense, although less, but I had a strange relationship with her, maybe that’s why I can’t talk about her too objectively. Janka Makota, who recently died, was also there. Ewa Sowa, who went to Katowice, and Beata Szymańska, who was active until recently as a philosopher and a poet, were also among the students. At that time there was also a girl of extraordinary beauty in philosophy, Joanna Turowiczówna, later Piasecka when she married Piasecki. Joanna’s beauty was amazing! Now Joanna lives in Sweden, where she went with her husband and it seems that she won’t be returning to Poland There is one other girl I would like to mention, first and foremost even – Halina Poświatowska. She joined a little later, I’m not even sure if she met Ingarden or not, but she was here in Krakow, studying. It was even funny, because the one who hired her was Augustynek, from the Chair of Natural Philosophy… Halina was also of extraordinary beauty, striking. We started off with the ladies at the university being very smart and fin­ished up with a ranking of the most beautiful women at the Institute of Philosophy. They are not mutually exclusive. No, no, absolutely! It would be difficult to say that Halina Poświatowska wasn’t smart, most of all as a poet. Among Polish female poets, she has made a name for herself until the end of time. Beata is also intelligent. While dealing with Eastern philosophy, with the influences of different cultures, she wrote a few very good works on the topics. I like Beata a lot, I really do and I think she also likes me. It’s mutual. And Joanna was unbelievably capable, Joanna Turowiczówna-Piasecka, but she also had an incredible ability to split hairs. But nothing was difficult for her. When she went into logic, there was no doubt that it would become fantastic. However, she was unable to write anything major. She tried, but nothing came of it. She was unable to bring something to a definite end, despite her undoubted philosophical and literary talent. Then something else occurred, which sometimes happens to women, it seems that at one point she completely devoted herself to her husband, who probably saw her as a slave. He did not care for her develop­ment. That’s what I think, perhaps I am being unfair to him. Were everybody aware that Ingarden was an outstanding figure? I was because I am quite sensitive to greatness. I think that I had such an attitude towards Ingarden, and when it comes to other people, maybe towards Witold Lutosławski. You’d feel the greatness. It was the same with Wojtyła, maybe even more so as he was still here, than when I’d go to Castel Gandolfo’s seminars later. We were really close to each other there, but it is also a lot more difficult to separate the greatness of a man from the greatness of the Pope. How do you assess the contemporary philosophical environment? What has changed in our Institute, what were the studies like in the past compared to now? I lost touch with the Institute, although there are a few people who wrote doctoral dissertations under my supervision. However, they don’t necessarily admit it, and I have a very clear opinion that it is the student who chooses the master. No one can say that they are somebody’s master. So I do not know what’s going on at the Institute. The person I’m in closest contact with is Sebastian Kołodziejczyk, who is in America right now. I appreciate him, and besides, I have an authentic friend in him and I can count on him in every matter. As for other people, for example, I would be afraid to say that Wlodzimierz Galewicz is my student. Although, for­mally speaking, he is, but he is so great that I would be afraid to compare myself with him. Who else was there? There’s also Sosnowski. Professor Gołaszewska’s doctoral student? Yes, Sosnowski wrote a very good article about me, in a book presenting figures of contemporary philosophers. Professor, would you encourage young people to study philosophy today? Of course, with this one reservation, not to be one hundred percent dependent on philosophy, because for that, let’s say, a little talent is necessary. And not everyone has the talent. Not everyone. However, everyone will gain if they at least ‘dabble’ with philoso­phy. I would advise to study something more specific, and to use philosophy to broaden your horizons. Nothing expands the horizons like philosophy, we have to be honest here. Would you agree with the words of John Scotus Eriugena that no one enters heaven except through philosophy? Sure. So, what is it with all these people? We have to remember about Logos. Justin the Confessor, claims that this Logos, which is Christ, is simultaneously diffused in all minds, only that in Christ it exists in its entirety. On the other hand, wherever it is scattered, it is a piece. Norwid used to say that each of us is dust of beauty. This is something very similar. And I think that there is some philosophical spark in every person. Because what would it be about? Having the ability to think about the most important things. So there is hope for everyone. There is hope. More difficult to then to coexist with these most important things and adapt to them.That’s troublesome. Do you think that philosophy make a person happier? No. In general, to look for happiness is an illusory thing. You have to do your part and happiness will either come or it won’t. It’s like what Rilke said about beauty. Beauty cannot be made, only favorable conditions for it to appear might be established. Can beauty not make you happy either? It depends, because beauty and pleasure do not necessarily go hand in hand. It can be a shocking beauty, but in general, it is very good that there is beauty in the world. It is extremely important. Beata Szymańska Biographical note Beata Szymańska (born January 29, 1938, Puławy) interests: history of philosophy, philosophy of culture, philosophy of the Far East, poetry A graduate of High School No. 7 in Krakow. In the 1950s, she started study­ing at two faculties at the Jagiellonian University: Polish studies as a major in 1956-1960 and philosophical studies in 1957-1964. Professional career She was associated with the Institute of Philosophy of the Jagiellonian Univer­sity from the beginning of her professional career, which she began in 1964. In the years 1990-1993 her commitment to the Institute was recognized as she was elected Vice Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy. However, this brief administrative period did not prevent her from continuing and developing her philosophical research. She made a remarkable contribution to the study of Far Eastern philosophy and played a significant role in the development of such research at the Jagiellonian University. In 1991, she founded the first Eastern Philosophy Research Unit in Poland, which soon became a Department of the Institute of Philosophy. In 2000, it was transformed into the Department of the Philosophy of Culture, which she headed until retirement, providing it with its current research direction. During this period of activity, her research was systematized and significantly expanded, making for an original scientific contribution to Polish philosophy. In addition to her academic work, she was also involved in journalism, de­buting in the late 1950s in Głos młodzieży wiejskiej [The Voice of Rural Youth], a monthly magazine published in Krakow, as well as writing for other Krakow magazines. She also created poetry and some short prose forms. Scientific career In 1964, she obtained a master’s degree in Polish philology for the dissertation Ignacy Krasicki na tle swojej korespondencji [Ignacy Krasicki in the Context of his Correspondence]. However, her main scientific interests were associated with philosophy and it was in this discipline that she obtained further degrees. In 1974, she received a PhD in humanities in the field of philosophy after defending a dissertation entitled Poglądy filozoficzne Antoniego Langego [Antoni Lange’s Philosophical Views], written under the supervision of Prof. Zbigniew Kuderowicz. In 1988 she received her habilitation based on the dissertation Przeżycia i uczucia jako wartości w filozofii polskiego modernizmu [Experiences and Feelings as Values in the Philosophy of Polish Modernism]. Five years later (1990) she was appointed associate professor. In 1993 she received the position of professor of the Jagiellonian University and five years later (1998) the title of full professor. She has supervised over a dozen PhD students, several of whom have chosen the path of academic development and currently hold significant functions at Krakow universities. Research Beata Szymańska’s scientific research consists of two divergent trends of philo­sophical interests: European and Far Eastern. Within the former, which can be conventionally related to her obtaining degrees, she mainly focused on modern European philosophy. Those interests resulted in works devoted to eminent philosophers such as: George Berkeley, Immanuel Kant and Artur Schopenhauer. In a sense, those can be seen as an introduction to considerations devoted to Polish followers of their thoughts in the modernist period. Hence publications devoted to the Polish variation of neo-Kantianism or Schopenhauer’s pessimism. This research has been expanded and simultaneously enriched thanks to another line of interests, independent, but leading to said modernism. On one hand, it involved European mystics like Jakob Boehme or Emanuel Swedenborg, on the other, they it related to research within the humanistic and psychoanalytic trend, with the overarching category of self-realization. Her particular interest in the psychological aspect of the latter led her to go to Paris and participate in the Jacques Lacan seminar, making her one of the first Polish students of the philosopher. Research devoted to European philosophy, in its broad sense as delineated above, resulted in a quite early – in the 1960s and 1970s – turn of Beata Szymańska’s attention to the Far East, both in a practical and theoretical sense. The former led her to enter a small group of people accompanying the Prime Minister of India, Indira Gandhi, during her visit to Krakow. She also belonged to a circle of friends with monk Seung Sahn, the 78th patriarch of Korean Buddhism, who visited Poland in the 1970s and 1980s. She was also involved in the visits of Tibetan monks, such as the 14th Dalai Lama or other lamas of the karma kagyu lineage. This second area of theoretical research into the Far East has led Beata Szymańska to reflections on religious and philosophical currents, especially Zen (chan) Buddhism, in its Chinese and Japanese varia­tions. Combining such broad interests may seem surprising or even paradoxical. ‘Seem’ would be key, however, since Europe at that time was subject to strong influence of Asian cultures, which was reflected in Polish art and science. These interests were expressed in scientific works devoted to detailed subjects related to Buddhism, such as: the ethical problem of compassion, silence, the relationship of experience and feeling, or, finally, manifestations of Buddhism in art. The last area includes one of the first Polish works devoted to Zen gardens in Japan. Many of Beata Szymańska’s publications devoted to these issues were not merely original, but pioneering in Poland. They involve translations, the author’s original publications and collections devoted to broadly understood Far Eastern culture. Such was certainly the textbook of Eastern philosophy (2001), which was published under her editorship. It covered the philosophy of India, China, Tibet and Japan. It is worth emphasizing that this book was a novelty on the Polish publishing market, breaking the mold of the previous popular works and offering the reader deep insight in an accessible language. Writings An important part of Beata Szymańska’s creative attitude was literature, and especially poetry. She made her debut as a poet in 1960 in Dziennik Polski. She collaborated with Polish artists, including Mieczysław Czuma, Wincenty Faber, or Leszek A. Moczulski, with whom she published a collection of poems entitled Próba porównania [An Attempt at Comparing] (1962). In the following years, she published her works in many different periodicals, such as: Kultura [Cul­ture], Magazyn Kulturalny [Cultural Magazine], Nowy Wyraz [New Expression], Przekrój and Życie Literackie [Literary Life]. She published individual volumes of poems, her works were also included in anthologies, among others: Owoc rodzi drzewo [Fruit Bears a Tree], Ja i ty [Me and You], Strofy o porach roku [Strophes About the Seasons]. She independently published eight volumes of poems. She is also a translator of poetry. Scientific organizations. Awards Beata Szymańska belongs to the Polish Philosophical Society and is a member of the Commission of Philosophical Sciences (1992) of the Polish Academy of Sciences. For years she has been actively working for the benefit of the Krakow writers’ community; she belongs to the Polish Writers’ Association and is vice president of its Krakow Branch; she is also a member of the PEN Club. She has been awarded many honors and awards for her achievements in the fields of culture and science including: the Gold and Silver Cross of Merit, Knight’s Cross of the Order of Polonia Restituta, Medal of National Education (2002), Medal of Merit to Culture Gloria Artis (2015), Golden Laurel from the Polish Culture Foundation for mastery in poetic art (2010). She was nominated for the K.I. Gałczyński’s Poetic Award – Orpheus, for the volume of poems Złota godzina [Golden Hour] (2014). In 2017, she received the City of Krakow Award. Scientific works •.Modernistyczne koncepcje wybitnej jednostki w dziejach: poglądy Antoniego Langego [Modernist Concepts of an Outstanding Individual in History: the Views of Antoni Lange]. Krakow: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego 1975. •. Immanuel Kant. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, and Wydaw­nictwo PAN, 1978. •. Poeta i nieznane. Poglądy filozoficzne Antoniego Langego [Poet and the Unknown: Antoni Lange’s Philosophical Views]. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Osso­lińskich, and Wydawnictwo PAN, 1979. •. Co to jest strukturalizm? [What is Structuralism?]. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1980. • With Barbara Markiewicz. Metafizyka i pesymizm. O niektórych koncepcjach filozofii drugiej połowy XIX wieku [Metaphysics and Pessimism: On Some Con­cepts of Philosophy in the Second Half of the 19th Century]. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, and Wydawnictwo PAN, 1983. • With Barbara Markiewicz. Od mistycyzmu do symbolizmu (Jakub Boehme i Ema­nuel Swedenborg) [From Mysticism to Symbolism (Jakub Boehme and Emanuel Swedenborg)]. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1985. •. Berkeley znany i nieznany [Berkeley Known and Unknown]. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1987. •. Przeżycia i uczucia jako wartości w filozofii polskiego modernizmu [Experiences and Feelings as Values in the Philosophy of Polish Modernism]. Krakow: Uni­wersytet Jagielloński, 1988. •. Mistycy i pesymiści. Przeżycia i uczucia jako wartości w filozofii polskiego mo­dernizmu [Mystics and Pessimists: Experiences and Feelings as Values in the Philosophy of Polish Modernism]. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossoliń­skich, 1991. •. Co to znaczy być sobą. Filozoficzne aspekty pojęcia samorealizacji [What it Means to Be Yourself: Philosophical Aspects of the Concept of Self-Realization]. Kra­kow: Księgarnia Akademicka, 1997. •. Koncepcje rozwoju w filozoficznej myśli wschodu i zachodu [Concepts of De­velopment in the Philosophical Thought of the East and the West]. Krakow: Universitas, 1998. •. What is Self-Realization. Kracow: Polish Academy of Sciences Publishing House, 1998. •. Kultury i porównania [Cultures and Comparisons]. Krakow: Universitas, 2003. • “Ogrody Zen” [Zen Gardens]. In Wschód [The East] edited by Leszek Sosnowski, and Anna Iwona Wójcik. Krakow: Universitas, 2004: 150-163. •. Chiński buddyzm chan [Chinese Chan Buddhism]. Krakow: WAM, 2009. • With Leszek Sosnowski, and Anna Iwona Wójcik. Odnawianie kultury. Studium wybranych przypadków [Renewing Culture: a Study of Select Cases]. Krakow: Libron, 2017. •. Między Zachodem a Wschodem: to samo i inne [Between the West and the East: the Same and Different]. Krakow: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 2019. As an editor. • With Jan Pawica, ed. Uniwersalne wartości etyczne w różnych kulturach. Materiały V Jagiellońskiego Sympozjum Etycznego, Kraków, 7-8 czerwca 1993 [Universal Ethical Values in Various Cultures]. Krakow: Uniwersytet Jagielloński, 1993. • Ed. Filozofia Wschodu [Eastern Philosophy]. Krakow: Wydawnictwo Uniwer­sytetu Jagiellońskiego, 2001. • With Piotr Mróz, and Anna Kuchta, ed. Oświecenie [Enlightenment]. Krakow: Libron, 2017. Translations As a translator, she translates from English, Czech, French, Russian and Slovak. These include both translations of scientific texts (e.g. Suzuki, Daisetz T. Zen I kultura japońska [Zen and Japanese Culture]. Translated by Beata Szymańska, Piotr Mróz, and Anna Zalewska. Krakow: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagielloń­ skiego, 2009; Jullien, Francois. Pochwała nieokreśloności. Zapiski o myśli i estetyce Chin [In Praise of Blandness: Proceeding from Chinese Thought and Aesthetics]. Translated by Beata Szymańska, and Anna Śpiewak, Krakow: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 2006), as well as poetic texts, including Marina Tsvetaeva, Louise Labé, Czech and Slovak poets. Literature • Et al. Próba porównania – poezje [An Attempt at Comparing – Poetry]. Krakow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1962. •. Sny o porządku [Dreams of Order]. Krakow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1965. •. Sztychy reńskie [Prints of Rhine]. Warszawa: PIW, 1969. •.Trzciny [Reeds]. Krakow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1970. •.Opowiadania [Stories]. Krakow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1977. •.Wiersze [Poems]. Krakow and Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1983. •.Wybór wierszy [Selection of Poems]. Krakow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1987. •.Anioły mojej ulicy [Angels of My Street]. Krakow: Plus, 2000. •.Słodkich snów, Europo! [Sweet Dreams, Europe!]. Krakow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 2005. •.Wybór wierszy [Selection of Poems]. Krakow: Śródmiejski Ośrodek Kultury, 2009. •.Złota godzina [The Golden Hour]. Krakow: Księgarnia Akademicka, 2013. •.Koty. Wiersze [Cats: Poems]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar, 2015. Beata Szymańska “…philosophy used to be only for men, as he called it frauenlos…” Interview conducted by Klaudia Adamowicz and Karol Kapelko “…philosophy used to be only for men, as he called it frauenlos…” What triggered your interest in philosophy? I began in Polish Studies, which I graduated with a master’s degree, and professor Roman Ingarden lectured in philosophy there. These were, if I am not mistaken, his first lectures since he was reinstated as an instructor, but I’m not sure. (His signature in my Polish Studies student record book, testifying to my passing of the “History of Philosophy” is dated 1958. A year earlier this class was being taught by Prof. Jan Leszczyński). At that time, I participated in Professor Kazimierz Wyka’s seminar. And there were discussions in which, as Professor Wyka claimed, I exhibited philosophical knowledge and interests. Philosophy had always in­terested me, but there was no philosophy at the Jagiellonian University at the time, so it was purely a layman’s interest in big metaphysical questions. When philosophical studies were restored (I was in the third year of Polish studies at that point) the University opened the first year of philosophy under the direction of Ingarden. And then Professor Wyka, of his own volition, called Ingarden and asked him to take me in for the first year of study. And so it began. Somewhere at the end of the first semester philosophy became my other major. After that I was studying both simultaneously. I also wrote two master’s theses, the first in Polish studies, then in philosophy. What did you expect from philosophical studies? Back then, philosophical studies were intended only for people who were study­ing or had completed a second major. Ingarden paid great attention to it. He repeated all the time that philosophy is not a profession and won’t provide anyone with the means to live, and none of us could expect to become a professional philosopher. We knew that we must have a profession that will make for our livelihood. As for me, I thought that philosophical studies would allow me to find answers to questions that Polish studies couldn’t. Why did you choose Jagiellonian University? A surprising question. Everyone would choose the Jagiellonian University if they could! And that is regardless of the fact fact that philosophy was only available at the Jagiellonian University at the time, meaning there was really no choice. On the other hand, it was possible to go into Polish studies at two universities: at the Jagiellonian University and at the Higher College of Teacher Training, while it was very difficult to get into the former. So there was a choice. But the Jagiellonian University had great lecturers, such as Kazimierz Wyka or Stanisław Pigoń, and later many renowned scholars emerged from the young research staff. What was Ingarden’s influence on you? What role did his classes play in your life? I think that for everyone who had the honor and pleasure to attend those classes these meetings were of great importance, but we probably did not realize it fully at the time. In any case, I often have the feeling that back then I didn’t appreciate what an outstanding personality I was dealing with, what a unique situation it was. Of course, he was an undisputed authority for us, as well an excellent lec­turer He was incredible at transferring knowledge, while maintaining a certain distance on the one hand, and showing respect for every student on the other. We had a personal relationship with him, because there were very few stu­dents in each year: around ten people in the first year admitted in and around as many in ours. Classes would often be combined for these two years. Together, we’d analyze philosophical texts and discuss various issues. Ingarden was dean at the time and we were able to address him with various organizational issues, he’d always find time for every student. I would also like to say something about the exams. We’d pass all the subjects Ingarden lectured in with him – he’d never delegate any of his assistant lecturers, although it was a somewhat common practice back then. He was never a strict examiner, but we would prepare for exams with him very conscientiously. It would be a terrible shame: to go unprepared into Ingarden’s exam. Besides, we treated other lecturers similarly. We weren’t studying because we had to, because in the end no one really had to graduate philosophy or get good grades, and yet all of us wanted it to go as well as we could. Currently many of my younger and older colleagues believe that the more severely they assess students, the more they will be recognized as excellent edu­cators. After all, neither Ingarden nor his great student, later an excellent lecturer “…philosophy used to be only for men, as he called it frauenlos…” Professor Władysław Stróżewski, had never been strict. We always prepared for exams with them because we wanted to make a good impression. I don’t know if Ingarden ever gave a failing grade. Well, that could’ve happened, but it would have to have been an extraordinary situation. It was just as rare for someone to fail an exam with Stróżewski. It would have to be some random cases. And although you’d be stressed, as with any exam, you’d look back at them later with great pleasure. I learned one more thing from Ingarden: an important thing that I did not use. When I published my first volume of poetry, I went to Ingarden to give him the book. He accepted it and said something I’ll remember for the rest of my life. He said: poetry is a great lady and philosophy is a great lady. You cannot serve two ladies. I didn’t listen to him, and very wrongly, but I remem­bered this wonderful advice, given to me so generously. So, you could say that the choice of philosophy as your second academic field was the right choice. Yes, although I’d never thought I would work in it field afterwards. I felt like a student of Polish studies all that time. But yes: it was a good choice, and our studies were simply pleasure. Can you recall anyone you met in Ingarden’s classes? Of course. Józef Tischner, a keen debater at the time, highly regarded by Ingarden, with whom I would later commute to Warsaw, to Adam Schaff’s seminars, and Janek Szewczyk, who accompanied us on these trips, a controversial and a little forgotten figure, still very interesting, it would be worthwhile to talk about him more extensively some time. Szewczyk was friends with Tischner and he was also highly appreciated by Ingarden, although he presented radically different political views. Both Tischner and Szewczyk wrote their PhD theses under In­garden’s supervision. Adam Węgrzecki, later a professor of philosophy in Krakow, was also in the same year. Meaning a year ahead of me. In contrast, in my year I met a certain Jurek Aleksandrowicz, with whom I have been tied together by fate, as he became my husband. Back then philosophy was complementing his medical studies which he didn’t seem to like much. Andrzej Wroński, today an outstanding professor of logic also studied with me, along with: Joanna Turowicz, Ewa Sowa, Jacek Bednarski (in his time a chess champion, sometimes, before the competition, he’d silently play a game of chess by himself), Leopold Zgoda – I probably didn’t name everyone. We were very close, because, as I mentioned, it was a small year. The year following ours included Jan Woleński and Jerzy Perzanowski. Social life was extremely lively. We were in regular contact with each other, as we were with the lecturers. Were these contacts social or on the level of philosophical discussions? Both. Also, social. Besides the famous Philosophy Ball, somewhat private meet­ings were held, name day parties. The social life was very active. Were there also student discussions about philosophy in social meetings? Yes of course. It was a tradition to go out together for a coffee. (Sometimes – there was no hiding it – it was vodka or beer, and the appropriate place for that, the famous “Barcelona” was nearby). We would sometimes go out with the lecturers for a philosophicaldiscussions instead of traditional classes, and sometimes we’d meet after classes, just the students. The students of philosophy from these years were socially connected with Piwnica pod Baranami, and later with Teatr 38. Social life, work, and studying were perfectly combined with each other. Besides Ingarden who else was teaching philosophy at that time? First of all, there was professor Izydora Dąmbska, an outstanding character. The history of philosophy was taught by Professor Daniela Gromska, a translator of Aristotle. We were taught psychology by Danuta Gierulanka, the lecturer in logic was Professor Pasenkiewicz, an eminent logician. It was a circle of great characters. The group of young employees consisted of, among others, Władysław Stróżewski, Andrzej Półtawski – an outstanding expert on Ingarden’s philosophy, and aesthetics classes were led by Maria Gołaszewska (whom we teased a little bit, because somehow she couldn’t reign us in). There were more than enough people to learn from. You also have to mention Professor Jan Leszczyński among these “…philosophy used to be only for men, as he called it frauenlos…” figures, who was a friend of Stanisław Ignacy Witkiewicz. I wrote my master’s thesis on Witkacy’s philosophical views. The difficulty was that sometimes when I would turn in the next chapter of my work, Leszczynski would look through it and say – that’s not the way it is. To which I would timidly reply that that was what was written in the books, Leszczyński would answer that Witkiewicz argued differently in conversations with him. Well, in the end there was no more discussion, because Professor Leszczyński certainly knew better. What subjects did Ingarden teach? He had history of philosophy and aesthetics with us, he also conducted a seminar. Since I managed to find my student record book from those years, a document probably quite rare today, maybe we could have a look at it, to note out at least some of the more important subjects and their lecturers. This will allow to determine, for example, the academic degrees the younger employees had in those years, as well as some other details, which in this case won’t be a subject of uncertain recollections anymore, but reliable documentation instead. For example, in the 1958/59 academic year, in the first year, logic was lectured by Professor Ingarden, and the workshops in it were conducted by A. Półtawski, M.A. The history of philosophy (both the lecture and the workshops) was taught by prof. D. Gromska. The lectures in sociology were given by Professor Rybicki. The introduction to philosophy (lecture and workshops) were conducted by Pro­fessor I. Dąmbska. There was also a philosophical seminar with her in the second semester. Psychology (lecture and workshops) was conducted by D. Gierulanka, PhD. (For the following years, I will try to be brief). Second year: the history of modern philosophy (lecture) Professor D. Gromska, workshops for this subject J. Makota, M.A., psychology (lecture and workshops) Gierulanka, PhD, philosophy seminar Professor Dąmbska, logic (lecture) Pro­fessor Pasenkiewicz and E. Żarnecka, M.A. (workshops). Third year: political economy Professor Kędziorek (lecture), history of philosophy (lecture) Professor Ingarden, workshops in it, Półtawski, M.A., aesthetics (lecture) Professor In­garden, workshops M. Gołaszewska, PhD, ethics (lecture) Professor I. Dąmb­ska, workshops Wł. Stróżewski PhD, philosophical seminar Professor I. Dąmbska. Fourth year: monographic lecture by Professor Ingarden, monographic lecture by Professor I. Dąmbska, seminar with Professor Ingarden, seminar with Pro­fessor Dąmbska, history of social development with J. Wiatr, PhD, didactics of propedeutics of philosophy, Assoc. Professor D. Gierulanka, PhD. Fifth year: monographic lecture “Selected Issues in the Theory of Science” Professor Dąmb­ska, seminar with Professor Dąmbska, seminar with Professor J. Leszczyński. What did the exams looked like and what were the rules for passing the class? In general, credits were given for the participation in classes. But some classes were graded, after passing a test, which was not that easy. And the exams were no different from today’s, except that there were less of us, so you didn’t have to wait such long hours for your turn. And, of course, the exams were only oral, except for logic – the exam was a written one, due to the nature of the subject. What did Professor Ingarden require in classes and exams? During examinations, as I mentioned, he was extremely kind. I just now re­membered that when he saw that someone was nervous during an exam, he’d give them cookies. I remember that I was too nervous to swallow those cookies, but at the same time it wouldn’t be polite to refuse the treat, but it was all, of course, very nice. Ingarden illustrated his lectures with examples. When he did the analysis of aesthetic qualities, he’d point to someone who was wearing a red sweater on that day and this red became a subject of consideration. Whenever I walk down that street, the former Manifestu Lipcowego St. where philosophy was located (now Piłsudskiego St.), I recall another example Ingarden referred to. On Czapskich St. adjacent to Manifestu Lipcowego St., which the windows of the lecture hall located on the first floor looked out to, there was a young tree (It’s still there, though it’s a different young tree now). Ingarden’s phenomenological analysis would often refer to this tree, to its forms, to the way it manifested itself, giving us insight into the essence of the tree. When he spoke about different minds he’d point to his dog, Dżok. You must mention that Ingarden’s dog was almost as well known as Ingarden. It was such a big, shaggy animal. The dog would come to classes with him, and also sit in the “…philosophy used to be only for men, as he called it frauenlos…” dean’s office when Ingarden was dean. (Back then dogs were welcome there, until later a certain rector issued an official ban on bringing dogs to the University.) What Ingarden valued and what he liked in his students, and what would he not tolerate? He wouldn’t tolerate stupidity – I think. He was very kind and open with every­one – that’s how I remember him. I never heard him getting angry with any of the students, he’d never address them impolitely, or even reveal fatigue to others, and certainly he could’ve been tired, he had quite a lot of classes after all. He always emanated calm and self-control. He must’ve had thousands of reasons to have been annoyed in that reality, because it was not an easy one. At the level of authorities, of all kinds, there were certainly many conflicting, sometimes very painful matters, but that never reached the students. We knew it, but he’d never talk about it. Because Ingarden was a gentle and patient man, he tolerated extremely an­noying people. There was such a famous figure, a lady who could often be found in the Jagiellonian Library – characteristic and peculiar. (It is worth mentioning the famous buffet at the Jagiellonian Library run by the no less famous Ms. Zosia. It was the center of social meetings, scientific exchanges and ordinary rumors). The aforementioned lady attended philosophy in the first period of its existence at the Jagiellonian University and graduated after many years, defending her doctoral thesis written under Ingarden’s supervision, but she’d constantly bother Ingarden with various matters. Professor sometimes address us with a discreet request for help, but he would always be patient with her. He knew that she was a person who was easily hurt, so he treated her very tactfully, and we’d only save him from those situations as the last resort. What did his work with students look like then, for example during seminars? The seminars were held in a larger group, because the two years, mine and the previous one, had them combined. As a result, there were many avid, regular debaters, among whom my classmates – Józek Tischner and Janek Szewczyk dominated. The others couldn’t be described as taciturn either. Can you remember any of Ingarden’s famous polemics with the students? Probably not. No, no one argued with Ingarden. But whenever someone ex­pressed doubts, he would gladly answer and explain the matter. There were definitely no conflicts. Did Ingarden have his favorites, or did he treat everyone equally? I think that he preferred more active people, he’d invite those people over, he’d work together with them. There were a lot of people who were already working in my year. Doctors or engineers had little time for such activities, so I think he had better contact with those who could fully devote themselves to philosophy Which philosopher did he value the most? Husserl. Ingarden was his disciple, so it could not be otherwise. Of course, he polemicized with his master. I don’t remember if he referred to anyone as often in class – of course besides the classics of philosophy, because it is understand­able that he treated them with respect. I think that Husserl was his most valued thinker. He’d also often mention Bergson. Did Ingarden tend to digress during his lectures or rather carry them out in a very orderly way? As I said, Ingarden would eagerly refer to examples, but his lecture was always very consistent. There was no digression that would distract from the main point, but it was a lively lecture, and at the same time very clear and orderly. Speaking of anecdotes: sometimes he would say, looking at the room that philosophy used to be only for men, as he called it frauenlos, which doesn’t mean that Ingarden underestimated the role of women in science. It is worth mentioning that during his lectures Ingarden, who after all studied in Germany and wrote his works initially only in German, often used German terminology, giving Polish equiva­lents, but for example when he lectured on Heidegger, he wouldn’t translate such difficult terms as Dasein at all, limiting himself to German terminology. It was similar when he lectured on Kant. He’d never assume that someone might not “…philosophy used to be only for men, as he called it frauenlos…” know German at all. According to him, anyone who was genuinely interested in philosophy had to know German and that was that. Did you realize as students, who you were actually dealing with? As I already mentioned – yes, although we certainly did not fully appreciate the honor of being able to be in regular contact with him enough. Could you say that Ingarden was a master? Of course. Did you have any closer contacts with Ingarden? Yes and no. We all had close contacts with him, since it was a small group, but they weren’t social contacts. He wouldn’t fraternize with students like the younger assistant lecturers who’d go out for a beer with us. Ingarden kept a cer­tain distance. In my social life, on the other hand, my husband and I would meet Ingarden at my father-in-law’s, Professor Julian Aleksandrowicz’s, home. I would like to mention here that thanks to my father-in-law’s good contacts and Ingarden’s kindness, it was possible for Halina Poświatowska to study philosophy in Krakow. Julian Aleksandrowicz, (I’ll remind you, a professor of medicine), who was very involved in organizing foreign aid to get back then seriously ill Halina, decided that she should be involved in some activity after her return to Poland. At his request, Professor Ingarden agreed to take (slightly informally) Halina in to study philosophy, transferring her credits for the part of the studies Halina had already finished in the United States. Afterwards Poświatowska was employed as an assistant lecturer and worked there until after Ingarden had left the Chair. There were also his famous Thursday meetings, to which he invited students. Do you remember them? I don’t remember them and I’m not even sure in what years they were held. They were at his home, but I can’t say much about them. Ingarden was passionate about photography, did he ever mention it in class? No. At least I don’t know anything about it. Besides, in his classes on aesthetics which he later also conducted at the Philosophical Society, he said he did not deal with certain problems. He never took on movies. As for music, he used to say that he didn’t know the theory of music and that the phenomenology of music should be created by someone else. He had the same attitude towards abstract painting. Did he have any favorite works of art he’d refer to? Ingarden most often referred to literature, and this was the subject of his main work, Das Literarische Kunstwerk. He’d often refer to German poetry. He also conducted analyses of paintings, but now I can’t remember if it was any specific images, or whether they changed depending on what he wanted to illustrate. Maybe the examples from literature were simply more memorable to me. Did he refer to socialist realist art in his classes? I don’t think he said anything about it at all. Out of politeness, delicacy and because of the political situation, since he would sometimes have to say the worst, and he could not and would not do it. Would he mention what he was working on in class? Yes, he said he was working on this and that, but didn’t talk much about himself in general. I also don’t remember any personal references in class. He was this immaculately dressed, well-behaved, and exceptionally diplomatic gentleman who never spoke about politics in class. Do you remember any Ingarden-related anecdotes? Ingarden was probably not perfect material for anecdotes. He wasn’t funny at all. He could, of course, joke in conversations with us, and he often did. For “…philosophy used to be only for men, as he called it frauenlos…” example, when talking about dogs he remarked that he only recognizes large, sturdy dogs, not the small ones with flat mugs. Never, however – which was kind enough of him – did he mention that he’d often see me with my Pekingese in the hall of the building at Manifestu Lipcowego St., so I never took it personally. In any case, of course, he had a sense of humor. I would say that he was both cheerful and serious. Jan Woleński Biographical note Jan Hertrich-Woleński (born September 21, 1940, Radom) interests: analytic philosophy, epistemology, logic, semiotics His family moved to Radom from Lviv. He completed primary and secondary school (B. Nowodworski High School No. 1) in Krakow. In 1958 he began studies at the Jagiellonian University, first law (1958-1963), and then philoso­phy (1960-1964). His main teachers in law were: Kazimierz Opałek and Maria Borucka-Arctowa, and in philosophy: Izydora Dąmbska, Roman Ingarden and Kazimierz Pasenkiewicz. During his studies he was the Chairman of the Students’ Philosophy Circle of the Jagiellonian University (curated by R. Ingarden) and the Vice Chairman (for scientific affairs) of the Society of the Students of Law Library. Professional career From 1963 to 1979 he worked at the Chair of Theory of State and Law of the Jagiellonian University, including since 1968 in the Department of Theory of State and Law at the Institute of Political Sciences of the Jagiellonian University. From 1974 he was also employed as an associate professor at the Institute of Social Sciences of the AGH University of Science and Technology. Additionally, he lectured in the methodology of sciences at the Institute of Philosophy of the Jagiellonian University. In the years 1979-1988 he worked at the Wroclaw Uni­versity of Technology, Institute of Social Sciences, in a philosophical team. He was head of the institute for a short time, but for political reasons, after he returned his Polish United Workers’ Party id card in December 1981, he was removed from the position and in 1982 he was also prohibited from lecturing at his alma mater. Instead, he lectured at the University of Wroclaw (Institute of Cultural Studies, Institute of Philosophy). From 1980, he was a member of Solidarność [Solidarity] and an organizer of a union at the Institute of Social Sciences of the Wroclaw University of Technology. In 1988 he returned to the Jagiellonian University and started working at the Institute of Philosophy, where from 1993 to 2010 he was the head of the Epistemology Department. In 2010 he retired, however, he continued to work at the Jagiellonian University until 2017. He also worked at the Pedagogical Academy in Częstochowa (1999-2003), and since 2003 he has been employed at the University of Information Technology and Management in Rzeszów, where he is the head of the Chair of Social Sciences. He was a visiting professor at many foreign universities: in Trento in 1989, in Salzburg in 1992, in Lviv in 2003, in Guangzhou in 2008, in Jerusalem in 2008/2009. He conducted specialized lectures at the Institute of Philosophy and Sociology at the Polish Academy of Sciences, at the University of Warsaw, at the Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan and at the Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski Krakow University. Academic career and activity He obtained a PhD in legal sciences in 1968 on the basis of a dissertation en­titled Linguistic Philosophy and Contemporary Analytical Jurisprudence in Great Britain; and in 1972 a habilitation in the theory of state and law based on a work entitled Logical problems of the Interpretation of Law. He was awarded title of full professor of humanities in 1991. He was a two-time holder of the Kosciuszko Foundation scholarship, thanks to which he traveled to the United States: in the years 1989-1990 to the Uni­versity of Berkeley, and in 1993-1994 to Boston University and the University of Pittsburgh. He also received a scholarship from The Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities and Social Sciences in Wassenaar in 2003-2004. He gave lectures at many Polish and foreign universities and spoke at numerous congresses and scientific conferences, including as an keynote speaker. He organized two large international scientific congresses in Krakow: in 1999, The 11th International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, and in 2008 The 6th European Congress of Analytic Philosophy. He was also the organizer and initiator of many domestic and foreign conferences, including The Tarski Centenary Conference, which took place in Warsaw in 2001 and events devoted to Polish philosophy, among others in Jerusalem, Montreal, Paris, Vienna and Tel Aviv. Woleński belongs to many academic societies and organizations, both domes­tic: the Polish Philosophical Society, the Polish Society of Logic and Philosophy of Science (in 2000-2002 he was the Chairman, he left the organization in 2018), the Polish Semiotics Society, the Polish Mathematical Society, and the Warsaw Scientific Society, Polish Academy of Sciences (correspondent member), Polish Academy of Learning (active member), and foreign: Academia Europea, Amer­ican Mathematical Society, Aristotelian Society, Brentano Gesellschaft, Institut “der Wiener Kreis”, European Society for Analytical Philosophy, Internationale Institut de Philosophie, Brazilian Academy of Sciences (foreign member). He was a Polish delegate to the International Union of History and Philosophy of the Science/Division of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science in the years 1992-2012. He is currently the Chairman of the Committee of Ethics in Science of the Polish Academy of Sciences (term of office 2014-2018). He belongs to or belonged to editorial boards of recognized Polish and foreign scientific journals: Filozofia Nauki [Philosophy of Science], Kwartalnik Filozo­ficzny [Philosophical Quarterly], Principia, Przegląd Filozoficzny [Philosophical Review], Edukacja Filozoficzna [Philosophical Education], The Polish Journal of Philosophy, Axiomathes, Conceptus, History and Philosophy of Logic, Dialectica, The Monist, Theoria. His editorial activity also included the book series: “Year­book of Vienna Circle Institute”, Biblioteki Filozofii Współczesnej [Libraries of Contemporary Philosophy], Poznań Studies and Synthese Library. He published a total of almost 2000 publications, about 750 of them abroad. He is the author of several dozen books, including monographs, and several hun- dred articles, reviews and polemics. His works are quoted and appear in foreign languages: in English, French, Hebrew, Spanish, German, Russian, Romanian and Ukrainian. Woleński is also a recipient of many awards, including: Tadeusz Kotarbiński Award in the field of philosophy (PAS, 1987), Societatis Scientiarium Varsovi­ensis Premium Triennale (1991), Award of the Minister of Education (1993), Krakow City Prize for scientific achievements (1996), Prime Minister’s Award for scientific achievements (2002), Jagiellonian Laurel (2009) and the Foundation for Polish Science Award in the field of humanities and social sciences (2013). In 2011 he was awarded the Knight’s Cross of the Order of Polonia Restituta. Research Woleński’s research interests are broad and concern all areas of philosophy. Most of all, however – as he himself has mentioned in an interview – he is interested in the possibility of applying logic to classical philosophical problems1. Woleński is an analytical philosopher who continues the traditions of the Lvov-Warsaw School. He values philosophical, methodologically sound argumentation and avoids global syntheses and solutions. He engages in critical analyses of basic philosophical concepts, such as, e.g. truth and its limits; cognition and its sources and values; knowledge and its criteria. He also deals with specific epistemological, methodological and ontological issues, such as realism, naturalism, anti-natu­ralism, meaning, nominalism, reism, conventionalism, etc. In addition to his own scientific work, he has been working for the dissemi­nation of Polish analytical achievements abroad for years. Thanks to his academic and research activity, Polish analytical philosophy, and above all, the achievements of the Lvov-Warsaw School, represented by such eminent figures as: Kazimierz Twardowski, Tadeusz Kotarbiński, Kazimierz Ajdukiewicz, Jan Łukasiewicz, and Stanisław Leśniewski, were introduced into the international scientific discourse and are now considered one of the greatest achievements of the humanities of the 20th century. Woleński took on the task of elaborating the philosophical legacy of the School at the request from Professor Izydora Dąmbska. He reconstructed and characterized the achievements of several dozens of its representatives in 1 “Prof. dr hab. Jan Woleński mówi o swoim filozofowaniu,” [interview], Sofia, 22, no. 12 (2012): 311. Accessible in Polish at: http://www.sofia.sfks.org.pl/22_Sofia_nr12_Wo­ lenski.pdf and in Wierzę w to, co potrafię zrozumieć. Jan Woleński w rozmowie z Sebastia­nem T. Kołodziejczykiem, Jackiem Prusakiem i Jolantą Workowską, (Krakow: Copernicus Center 2014). a comprehensive way. He showed the separateness and originality of this group in relation to other philosophical groups, pointing to their common methodological and substantive views, shared genealogy and awareness of their common affiliation. Moreover, he showed that the philosophy of the Lvov-Warsaw School should not be only identified with logic, nor should it be considered a part of neo-posi­ tivism. Woleński is also interested in the issues of the Holocaust and the aesthetics of opera. He is a proclaimed agnostic. He is also engaged in lively journalistic activity on contemporary socio-political issues, in particular, he criticizes various irrational actions, e.g. in the legal domain. Selected publications •. Logiczne problemy wykładni prawa [Logical Problems of the Interpretation of Law]. Warszawa and Krakow: PWN, 1972. •. Z zagadnień analitycznej filozofii prawa [On the Issues of Analytical Philosophy of Law]. Warszawa and Krakow: PWN and Uniwersytet Jagielloński, 1980. •. Filozoficzna szkoła lwowsko-warszawska [Lvov-Warsaw Philosophical School]. Warszawa: PWN, 1985. •. Logic and Philosophy in the Lvov-Warsaw School. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1989 (Russian edition 2004, French edition 2011). •. Kotarbiński. Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna, 1990. •. Metamatematyka a epistemologia [Metamathematics and Epistemology]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, 1993. • Ed. Philosophical Logic in Poland. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994. •. Szkoła lwowsko-warszawska w polemikach [The Lvov-Warsaw School in Polemics]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar, 1997. •. Essays in the History of Logic and Logical Philosophy. Krakow: Jagiellonian Uni­versity Press, 1999. •. Epistemologia [Epistemology]. Vol. 1: Zarys historyczny i problemy metateore­tyczne [The Historical Outline and Metatheoretical Problems], vol. 2: Wiedza i poznanie [Knowledge and Cognition], vol. 3: Prawda i realizm [Truth and Realism]. Krakow: Aureus, 2000-2003. •. Granice niewiary [The Limits of Disbelief]. Krakow: Wydawnictwo Literac­kie, 2004. • With Pablo Domínguez. Lógica y filosofía. Madrid: Publicaciones de la Facultad de Teologia “San Damasio”, 2005. •. Epistemologia. Poznanie, prawda, wiedza, realizm [Epistemology: Cognition, Truth, Knowledge, Realism]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, 2005. • With Jan Hartman. Wiedza o etyce [Knowledge of Ethics]. Warszawa and Bielsko-Biała: Wydawnictwo Szkolne PWN and ParkEdukacja, 2008. • With Jan Skoczyński. Historia filozofii polskiej [History of Polish Philosophy]. Krakow: WAM, 2010. •. Essays on Logic and its Applications in Philosophy, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2011. •. Z zagadnień analitycznej filozofii prawa [On the Issues of Analytical Philosophy of Law], 2nd ed., changed and exp. Krakow: Aureus, 2012. •. Historico-Philosophical Essays. Vol. 1. Krakow: Copernicus Center Press, 2013. •. Wykłady o naturalizmie [Lectures in Naturalism]. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Na­ukowe UMK, 2016. •. Logika i inne sprawy [Logic and Other Matters]. Krakow and Rzeszów: Coper­nicus Center Press and Wyższa Szkoła Informatyki i Zarządzania, 2017. •. Logic and Its Philosophy. Berlin: Peter Lang, 2018. •. Semantics and Truth. Dordrecht (in print). Jan Woleński “…he considered himself a depositary of the philosophical truth…” Interview conducted by Patryk Miernik and Rafał Kur How did your adventure with philosophy start? In the first year of law, we had interesting classes in the theory of state and law, in which there was some philosophical content about law and the state, but not only. It was 1958, or two years after the so-called the Polish October and the circulation of ideas was quite lively and strong. Because I was interested in the theory of law and its logical and philosophical background, I drew the attention of one of the assistant lecturers who conducted classes in this subject and he asked me to go out for a coffee which was a sensation at the time. He told me that since I’m interested in philosophy and logic, I should read some books, including: Kotarbiński, Czeżowski, Kotarbiński and Ajdukiewicz. During the second year I deepened my knowledge in a proseminar in the theory of law. It was then that I decided to take up some additional studies. The options under consideration were sociology, psychology or philosophy. I considered it in view of a possible career as a theoretician of law. I confided my plans to Professor Kazimierz Lepszy (I knew him privately), who was then a vice-rector, later a rector of the Jagiellonian University. He said to me: “It’s best to choose philosophy, because Roman Ingarden is there”. At the end of my second year of law I applied for admission to philosophical studies, but due to the regulations in force at the time, I would have to take the entrance exam to start from the first year, and I simply didn’t feel like preparing. Another possibility was to pass the exams from the first year of philosophy and then start in the second year. I took it and starting fall of 1960 I was studying both law and philosophy. When you started philosophy, did you know who Ingarden is? I didn’t know much about Ingarden at the time. I came with a somewhat pos­itivistic attitude towards logic, and Ingarden just didn’t really understand what the logicians had in mind. From today’s perspective, do you think that your decision to choose philo­sophy was the right one? Yes. More so than law? It’s difficult for me to judge right now. Surely had the opposite happened, namely had I begun with philosophical studies, I think that I wouldn’t have studied law at all. However, in terms of choosing from the alternatives for additional studies that I’ve mentioned, I can see now that I certainly did the right thing. I mean, I don’t see myself as a sociologist or a psychologist. What was important was what prof. Lepszy clearly told me that there was a huge difference in level between the studies I considered, precisely because of Ingarden. Who else did you get to know in philosophical studies? Everyone knew everyone there, because you have to remember that, all in all, it was 40 people. The philosophical studies were not admitting students every year, that only happened later. In Warsaw it was each year, and in Krakow and Wroclaw alternately, from 1959, for example in Krakow there was no recruitment in 1960 and this was the additional reason I started from the second year. The first year of admissions in Krakow was 1957, so after October. Who was there? Józef Tischner, Adam Węgrzecki, Leszek Kontkowski, Franciszek Gołembski, Jan Szewczyk…, the following year Beta Szymańska-Aleksandrowicz, Jerzy Aleksandrowicz, Ewa Sowa, Joanna Piasecka, Leopold Zgoda, while in my year there were, among others, Andrzej Wroński, Andrzej Kowal, Józef Lipiec, Halina Poświatowska, Jacek Bednarski, Jan Vetulani, Jan Sarna (later the author of a book on Ingarden, and privately the husband of the well-known athlete Mirosława Sałacińska). After my graduation (no longer divided into years) – Krzysztof Zanussi (though for a while), Krystyna Stamirowska, Jerzy Perzanowski, Kazimierz Czarnota, Piotr Waszczenko, Jolanta Załuska, Wit Jaworski, Henryk Waligóra… Besides, the relations between classmates were quite strange, perhaps philo­sophy gathered people of all ages. These differences were particularly visible between the first year (1957) and the next. Imagine that the students, even in the same year, weren’t on a first-name basis. For me it was a shock because in law almost everyone was. This changed in 1961 at the student philosophical seminar in Zakopane. A large group came from Warsaw, among others Marcin Król and Marek Siemek. All of them were, of course, on a first-name basis and they looked at us like we were total social misfits. Ewa Sowa said at one point that we should stop fooling around and quit with the formalities. However, this did not apply to our relations with those admitted in 1957. As far as assistant lecturers are concerned: Ewa Żarnecka-Biały dealt with logic, Władysław Stróżewski with the history of philosophy, Janina Makota with the history of philosophy, Maria Gołaszewska with aesthetics, Andrzej Półtawski didn’t have any special disciplinary affiliation. Danuta Gierulanka taught us psychology. Professors who instructed us were: Ingarden, Izydora Dąmbska, Daniela Gromska (lectures on the history of Ancient and Medieval philosophy), Kazimierz Pasenkiewicz taught logic, then Stanisław Surma appeared, and he stirred things up with mathematical logic. There was also a group from the former Chair of the Foundations of Marxism-Leninism (later of Philosophy of Natural Sciences): Zdzisław Augustynek, Michał Hempoliński, Zdzisław Kochański, Jan Pawlica and Zbigniew Kuderowicz. Jan Leszczyński, a pre-war philosopher, a friend of Witkacy, who wasn’t very fond of Ingarden, also worked in the De­partment of Logic. Everything was located at Manifestu Lipcowego St. (now Piłsudskiego) in the building at the corner of Czapskich St. Philosophy was on the first floor and logic and philosophy of nature was on the second. During your academic years, were there any social. informal meetings? I can’t remember very well. Such meetings probably did take place, but it was difficult for me to attend them. Please remember that I graduated from two different faculties. Legal studies were demanding. But I remember various discussions in other places. For example, Stróżewski reminded me that had I visited him. Did any of your friends participate in these meetings at Ingarden’s place? There was a so-called privatissimum after Ingarden’s retirement. I never partic­ipated because his philosophy wasn’t really attractive to me, but for example Perzanowski did. He mentioned that one of the armchairs was the Professor’s and the other one was his dog’s Dżok. I’d often meet up with Dąmbska in her apartment, but that was after graduation. How did these types of meetings go? Various topics were discussed. There was always coffee, cookies. I used to go visit her partially to get acquainted with international philosophical bibliography which she’d receive. It had valuable information’s on books, you would know what was coming out and on what topic. The relationship we had was rather direct, with no distance to speak of. Dąmbska also ran a privatissimum after she was fired from the Jagiellonian University, or, to put it more politely, transferred to the Polish Academy of Sciences. In your opinion who did Ingarden have the most influence on? Danuta Gierulanka, Andrzej Półtawski, Władysław Stróżewski, Jan Szewczyk Janina Makota, Józef Tischner. Everyone was influenced by him in some way. Ingarden was certainly the main figure in the Krakow philosophical community. We should also mention Karol Wojtyła, whose concept of human person had clear connections with Ingarden’s concept of a man. Wojtyła also officiated Ingarden’s funeral. How did he influence you? Moderately, but I will not say that not at all, for example his concept of formal ontology appealed to me very much. I even dabbled with it as possible to be subject to a logical analysis. Moreover, the concept of layers in literary works was used by me to analyze the opera as a musical work. I was also inspired by Ingarden’s critique of the principle of empirical reasonability. It is a bit of a paradox that I probably wrote more articles about Ingarden than many oth­ers who consider themselves his students… There is an online encyclopedia of literature, or of literary studies and I was asked to write an entry on Ingarden for it. The request surprised me. Somehow, however, they must have known that I researched Ingarden. I was also offered to write an entry on Ingarden for The Encyclopedia of Phenomenology, but I rejected it, explaining that there are better experts in Poland. Was Ingarden talking about politics? He’d cut off the topic, but at times he would have some sharp remarks. Ingarden was very autocratic, he did not like opposition, he imposed the subject matter. But when I was beginning his last seminar, in the 1962-63 academic year, he said: “You see, this is my last seminar. Choose the topic”. Knowing that he was critical of reism, I suggested reading Kotarbiński. And he winced and rejected the idea. And then Józef Lipiec suggested: “How about Dialectics of Nature by Engels?”. And Ingarden says (something along the lines of): “This is an unfinished work; it is difficult to read. It is not known what the author really meant in the end. Did he write what he really wanted to write, because it came out very late, in the 1920s in the Soviet Union”. But I don’t think he meant anything else by it, it was but a remark that it is an unfinished work. “And besides,” Ingarden con­tinued, “as the Russians entered Lviv in 1939, Professor Ajdukiewicz, wanting to go along with the times, began to read Lenin’s Materialism and Empirio-criticism. But he read it like any other philosophical work and after a week he began to work as an associate professor in medicine”. Then I spoke again. “Then maybe we should do Ajdukiewicz’s Language and Meaning”. Ingarden said: “This is a great idea. I remember well how this paper was created, how Ajdukiewicz dictated it to me in German and I typed it out for him on the typewriter”. We all knew what the remark about Ajdukiewicz and Lenin meant, what it hinted at. Generally, Ingarden avoided any political topics. The political pressure be­came more intense in 1964, because of the letter of 34 intellectuals speaking against politics in the sphere of culture (signed, among others, by Kotarbiński, Tatarkiewicz, and Wyka). During my time in philosophical studies, there were basically no classes in Marxism, not one lecture apart from the economics and the theory of social development as a utilitarian subject. I had already passed those classes earlier in law school. What subjects were taught in the philosophy then? The studies were organized differently, according to pre-war principles. Namely, the first year consisted of the so-called logic level I, introduction to philosophy, history of ancient and medieval philosophy, psychology, proseminar lectures, economics. In the second year there was a more advanced course on the history of philosophy (part of which was lectured by Dąmbska, part by Ingarden), logic level II, or mathematical logic, a seminar… and that’s probably it. The third year was the history of philosophy, let’s say modern (Ingarden’s lectures, but mainly on Kant), ethics and a seminar. Lectures were conducted on: logic, psychology, ethics, aesthetics and the history of philosophy. However, there was no ontology or epistemology. There were no such subjects, it was all developed in seminars and monographic lectures. What courses did Ingarden conduct? Aesthetics, ethics, as well as logic I, but that was in the years 1957-1959, meaning in the first, and maybe part of the second year. Dąmbska taught methodology, but also ethics, Gierulanka had psychology, Pasenkiewicz – logic, Dr. Gałecki (who commuted from Wroclaw) – aesthetics. There were also seminars conducted by professors and associate professors, including Leszczyński. Who conducted the workshop classes? Stróżewski, Półtawski, Makota, Żarnecka-Biały, Gołaszewska. Later Szewczyk and Łagowski joined the group. Can you remember your first meeting with Ingarden? I remember it very well. The meeting was quite dramatic. Ingarden, like Brentano and Husserl, devoted his first seminar to British empiricism; he believed that it was a reservoir of all possible errors in philosophy. Surely Husserl and Brentano shared this view. We read Locke’s An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. At the first meeting Ingarden wanted us to consider whether the word ‘idea’ appears on the first dozen pages in the same sense or not. I tried to do that homework. My classmates were a little lazier and I think no one besides me was really prepared. At the next meeting Ingarden asked us what came of our reading. I volunteered to answer and stated that the word ‘idea’ occurred many times in the same form, but the sense it appeared in wasn’t always the same. And he was, to put it colloquially, besides himself. When he was upset, he’d often take off his wedding ring and [TAPPING ON THE TABLE] speak in German. At that time, he said “Das ist Warschauer Schule”. And all the while he was explaining why there was no difference between the expressions. And that was my first (actually the second) meeting with Ingarden. I clearly rubbed him the wrong way, it’s not like he disliked me. I was a fairly active student, for some time the head of the philosophical circle, and my relationship with Ingarden was good. Later I lived at Sobieski St., a few hundred meters from Ingarden. I met him quite often and sometimes accompanied him in his walks. Socially, Ingarden was extremely accessible, and in class he was simply cool. There was a myth, however, that Ingarden was intimidating. But it’s an exaggeration. I think that Ingarden very much regretted the fact that he didn’t have many students, as opposed to, for example, Ajdukiewicz or Kotarbiński. However, in my personal opinion, Ingarden didn’t have a talent for teaching. What do you mean by that? It seems to me that he was too overwhelming. It forced you to either be one of his followers or (philosophically) an ideological opponent. However, Twardowski was similar and even more autocratic, but in terms of everyday discipline, not beliefs. Twardowski never tolerate being late or not following the regulations. Meanwhile, Ingarden was quite liberal in this respect. As dean (he held this position in the early 1960s), he played a negative role in the implementation of the obligation to study a second major in addition to philosophy. He was very lax with it and many of my colleagues only studied philosophy. He allowed it as a dean. I didn’t have to, of course, since I had my law studies. Perzanowski studied in mathematics. Most of our colleagues, to be brutally honest, simply blew it off. You can see this liberalism while looking at Ingarden’s books. They are not as polished as they should be. Ingarden took after Husserl in believing that indexes are unnecessary, because then people read the index and not the book. He didn’t understand that it would be terrible for the reception, because not everyone is interested in everything that is written in the book, but they might want to see, for example, the terms ‘cause’, ‘idea’ etc. There are some anecdotes on the sub­ject, e.g. Stróżewski told me how, in the presence of Ingarden, he and Półtawski searched for something in the Controversy over the Existence of the World, and it took a long time. Then, Półtawski said, “If there was an index, it could be found immediately”. Back to my relationship with Ingarden, I’d like to tell a little story. When a professor retires, a commemorative book dedicated to that individual is often published. I was convinced that Ingarden’s disciples had thought about that. I wanted him to also get something from the students. I shared this idea with Jan Szewczyk, I said something along the lines of: “Look, Jaś, here’s the thing, the Old Man (as we called Ingarden at the time) is retiring, maybe we would write something for him, some collection of student articles, get a nice cover for them and give it to him”. Szewczyk was very enthusiastic about the idea and probably started talking about it. A few days later, Danuta Gierulanka called me and said “Jesus, we completely forgot! And thank God you remembered! We have to quickly make a book”. This was the first step towards the book Philosophical Essays for Roman In­garden. I was drafted into the editorial committee. There wasn’t much time, we did the proofreading ourselves. The book did not come out in time, it was too late to make it, but it was possible to make a special typescript, nicely bound in leather. Ingarden received it on his seventieth birthday. Gierulanka and Półtawski asked me to give him the book. I refused because I did not feel like Ingarden’s disciple, but they firmly insisted on it, arguing that it was my idea. Ingarden was probably prepared for this. When we entered his apartment, he was sitting in an armchair. I gave it to him, I even knelt, he was extremely moved. This took place on Ingarden’s seventieth birthday in the presence of many people. Can you say something about women in Ingarden’s life? Naturally, there were stories, for example, about the fact that some ladies were in unrequited love with Ingarden. Ingarden certainly appreciated the beauty of women. When he came to the student philosophical seminar in Zakopane (1961), he invited the Krakow group for coffee, cookies and wine to one of the better restaurants in Zakopane (it was “Watra” or “Jędruś”) and it was clear that he liked the company of pretty girls, especially the aforementioned Joanna Piasecka. This anecdote may shed some light on that feature of his. The Student Philosophical Circle which I was president of for some time, was quite active. We had several guests, including Tadeusz Czeżowski, Henryk Elzenberg, Leszek Kołakowski and Roman Suszko. I had also invited Czesław Znamierowski from Poznan. When I called him and asked for the title of the reading, he replied, “Maybe I will just say what an old philosopher like me has to say to young people”. Ingarden was the supervisor of the circle and he’d always sit behind the desk furthest in the back, not to disturb the students when they spoke. Znamierowski was a declared moralist, considering everything in the light of the principle of universal kindness. When he discussed its practical consequences, he used names, so there was Jan, his wife Maria, hardworking and middle-aged, and his friend, young and beautiful Laura. Jan had a dilemma whether to choose going on a trip, if I remember correctly, to Hawaii with Laura or staying at home with Maria. Znamierowski argued that Jan, guided by the principle of universal kindness, should stay at home. And Ingarden spontaneously shouted, “Why?”. Znamie­rowski responded, “Roman, how could you?” And Ingarden, “I still really don’t understand why he shouldn’t go to Hawaii with Laura?”. What were the final tests and exams like at that time? You’d take them individually. And they were long. For example, I remember the exam on the history of philosophy, after the second year, very well. I remember it because the schedule was terribly tight at that time, especially in law. I was con­cerned with the law studies because I had an academic scholarship of złotys 850, which was really high back then. The condition of receiving it was a good grade average, at least a four. In the morning I had an exam on the criminal process and at three an exam with Ingarden and Dąmbska on the history of modern philosophy. They examined for an hour, 30 minutes for each examiner; that was the way it used to be in Lviv. It was a sweltering day, I passed the process exam at about 2:00 pm, and at 3:00 pm I had an exam with Ingarden and Dąmbska. In any case, I didn’t even have time to eat. It did not go well for me, though not because I was unprepared. The reason was exhaustion, waiting from 8 am, the black outfit, the tie, twen­ty-something degrees and, a lot of tension, and, most of all, a terrible headache. I went to the dean earlier to try and to reschedule my exam at philosophy. He refused (nobody forced me to study in two faculties, as he explained). I appealed to the Vice-Rector, but that too was unsuccessful. I couldn’t postpone anything at the Faculty of Law, because then I would lose my scholarship. So I went to the history of philosophy exam on the same day, I couldn’t do anything about it. I was a good student, active in seminars, etc. After the exam, which I finally some­how passed, Dąmbska and Ingarden called me in and asked me what happened to me. I told them the whole story. Ingarden got upset and asked why I hadn’t come to him to agree on a different date. I said, “I am a lawyer and I follow the rules”. And Ingarden, “Next year please come take the exam at any time you like”. I said, “But what if the dean has reservations about it?” Ingarden, “Just let him try”. And the next year, I passed ethics and the history of philosophy in September, not in June, without notifying the dean’s office. There were no con­sequences. Ingarden was quite demanding, but I’d say he graded quite generously. Did anyone ever fail his exams? Probably, but I don’t remember any such case. Was Ingarden quite tolerant towards students? With all his autocratic philosophical views, he was quite tolerant. He was in­dulgent when someone disagreed with him. He was so convinced that he knew the truth that it sufficed him. Nevertheless, he argued for his position. He was probably like Husserl in this respect. However, he did inherit something from the Lviv tradition. In Lviv, it was a bit different, for example professors summarized discussions at seminars, always tried to fish out something valuable from every speech, and Ingarden often did it too, maybe not at seminars, this I remember more from meetings of the Philosophical Society. Was Ingarden interested in art? For sure, but I had never seen him at the Philharmonic, although would regu­larly attend concerts there, but maybe I was just unlucky. Besides, I know that Ingarden took great pictures and he regarded photography as art, he was inter­ested in architecture, maybe because of his son who is an architect. However, as I read his works, because despite everything, namely despite my limited interest in phenomenology, I read most of Ingarden’s works, it surprised me a bit that he dealt mainly with classical art, that he did not analyze modern art. I think that Mann’s Magic Mountain is the most avant-garde work he cited. In any case, he never involved himself with, for example, the aesthetics of abstract art. How would you describe Ingarden’s contacts with Dąmbska and Gierulanka? He had Gierulanka completely enchanted. He did, of course, like her, whether he valued her I do not know. Gierulanka was a complete copy of the master, of course on a smaller scale. As for Dąmbska, the relations must have been good since, when he took over the Chair after returning to the Jagiellonian Univer­sity, he proposed Dąmbska and Gromska for professorial positions. They were also all on a first-name basis. But the question remains, how much was this the effect of valuing their views, moreover, in the case of Gromska, there was hardly even anything to value, since she was a historian of philosophy, a good one, but nothing much more than that. Dąmbska was, of course, in opposition to him, but you have to remember it was Lviv, so it isn’t very clear to what extent this was due to the resentments lingering from there. I would assume that these matters were considered in a wider circle: Ajdukiewicz, Kotarbiński, Ingarden, maybe some others, and they tried to help people who were once connected with Lviv. Ingarden never openly criticized Dąmbska, although their views were very different on various issues, basic ones even. Dąmbska had repeatedly expressed great respect for Ingarden’s work. I repeat once again that their relations were certainly civil, but to what extent was there a friendship bond, I do not know. You could ask Stróżewski, or Półtawski, because they were then close to Dąmbska and Ingarden. However, I was only a student, then I worked on in the Faculty of Law and actually lost touch with philosophy, except for my contacts with logicians. Dąmbska left the Jagiellonian University in 1963. Ingarden had already retired at that point, so he couldn’t help her, but one thing has to be said, that as long as he was active the Marxist group was quite isolated, and then it clearly wanted payback for years of certain humiliation. Not everyone, though. Ingarden didn’t have any political biases, so if someone was a Marxist and wanted to work with him, why not. Hempoliński was close to him, Pawlica did his doctorate under him, I remember Augustynek and Ingarden disputing on causality and determinism. However, when Ingarden left, the Marxists had the green light to revolutionize the philosophical Chairs, and so they did. What was Ingarden like in personal relations? It’s difficult for me to talk about it, because I didn’t really know his private sideHe seemed quite autocratic in terms of views, but it seems to me that in the end he was a bit more liberal. Maybe it had to do with age or with the conviction that there were so many open issues that he wasn’t necessarily always right. I remember that as he worked on the concept of causality, he became interested in modal logics and modal concepts. I once told him that I got two German books by Oskar Becker, where modal issues were raised. He was an acquaintance, maybe even a friend of his, since he was also one of Husserl’s students. Ingarden asked me to lend him the books – it was probably in the second half of the sixties. He often emphasized, maybe sometimes it was even a front, that one can always learn something, and he would like to learn something from every read, even by a student. It was, as it seems to me, a new feature of Ingarden’s, at least according to my observations he hadn’t been like that before. However, he was undoubtedly a kind, understanding man, but I think that he had a sense of superiority as a philosopher. It was quite noticeable that he considered himself a depositary of the philosophical truth or, at least, if he didn’t think that he had learned or possessed it, then at least he believed the method he used will surely lead to it. There is also the problem of his attitude towards other philosophers, whom he considered as rivals, or for people who were better off than him. As any great philosopher, he was undoubtedly ambitious, and from his various statements one could get the impression that he felt hurt by the fact that he encountered some difficulties in obtaining the professorship that he was offended, that he didn’t get the position at the university earlier. But these are quite well-known issues, since, for example, Twardowski writes about it in the Diaries, even that “Kazik (Kazimierz Ajdukiewicz) insists that Ingarden become a professor but I (Twardowski) think differently, because he is from outside our school, he represents a very clearly defined philosophy, but in the end I won’t be the one working with him, so let it be as Kazik wants”. Twardowski was already retired. I think it’s not fair of Ingarden that in his later memoirs, published in the Philosophical Quarterly, he writes about Ajdukiewicz very negatively, that in Göttingen, where they were together, he actually did nothing but play cards or billiards. I don’t think that Ingarden was oblivious of Ajdukiewicz speaking up for him in Lviv, and besides, what he writes is certainly untrue, according to what he himself said: namely in our seminar he mentioned Reinach and his discussions with Ajdukiewicz on set theory. I must say I didn’t like it all that much. It seems that Ingarden envied Ajdukiewicz and Kotarbiński for their pedagog­ical success, i.e. their disciples and that they were members of the Polish Academy of Sciences before him. Ingarden was probably quite sensitive to this subject, but, on the other hand, which has to be clearly said, he was no exception. I should also remind you what Jerzy Perzanowski confirmed (we once talked about it) that he reacted very harshly to Kołakowski’s book (whom he valued, and whose monograph on Spinoza he spoke well about, I heard it myself) Positive philosophy: from Hume to the Vienna Circle. Kołakowski didn’t like positivism – neither did Ingarden, for that matter – and he claimed that the Lvov-Warsaw School was actually a branch off of neo-positivism. According to Ingarden, it wasn’t the case, he claimed it was an original Polish philosophical achievement, and he shouldn’t have depreciated Polish philosophy like that. Do you think that Ajdukiewicz’s wedding with Twardowski’s daughter influ­enced Ingarden’s attitude towards Ajdukiewicz? There’s no mention of it as the reason for the animosity. The relationship be­tween Ingarden and Twardowski was definitely strained, it was clearly echoed in Twardowski’s statements in the Diaries, though not Ingarden’s. After Twardowski’s death, a special celebration was held in his memory. Ingarden gave a speech on Twardowski as a philosopher and it was favorable. Besides, the recently pub­lished letters between Ingarden and Twarowski contain nothing to suggest that the relationship between them was bad. The whole story of Ingarden’s attitude towards Twardowski’s school is complex, because of the Lviv resentments, which I have already mentioned, that came into play later. However, please remember that I was just a bystander and didn’t pay special attention to these issues. It seemed obvious to me that Ingarden didn’t really hold philosophers from the Lvov-Warsaw School in the highest regard, especially Kotarbinski, which he never attempted to hide. On the other hand, I read somewhere that he considered Twardowski to be a better philosopher than his (Twardowski’s) disciples. Ingarden certainly led a philosophical dispute with Kotarbinski. I also know that Kotarbiński made a supportive statement about Ingarden’s professorship, reserved, but positive. However, when it comes to Ajdukiewicz, it was a com­plicated situation, probably some kind of rivalry from Lviv times over which one was more important. Ingarden’s texts contain hints at a conflict between Leśniewski and Ajdukiewicz regarding the theory of syntactic categories. Ingarden said in his memoirs that Leśniewski even accused Ajdukiewicz of plagiarism and that Ajdukiewicz had to flee from Warsaw (where he worked as a professor in 1926-28), but then somehow everything dispersed. In my opinion, it is all very vague. It was the time when both applied for a professorship in Lviv. Ingarden was surely taking steps to obtain a professorship in Lviv, and his argument, more or less, consisted in: “Here, I have written a world-famous book on literary work, and it did nothing for me, while others are being appreciated”; he clearly held a grudge about it. Did students like Ingarden? He was well-liked (if we’re talking about the time I was studying, and after), because he was such a cheerful man, calm, distanced. He took colleagues and stu­dents seriously. It is difficult to pin anything negative on him here. As a matter of fact, there were no anecdotes about him, except for a few insignificant sentences. Did Ingarden get angry easily? That was when someone clearly opposed him, Ingarden reacted harshly to such various, ‘logistic’ as he called them, interjections. On the other hand, he was very tolerant of the phenomenological gibberish coming from some of his disciples, or people who considered themselves disciples. There was a lady, I won’t mention any names, who was a queen of gibberish, she thought herself Ingarden’s disciple, and he always tried to explain what she had intended to say. What was Ingarden’s attitude towards German philosophers who supported Nazism, like Heidegger? In Heidegger’s case, Ingarden did not like him at all and he’d never hide it. He talked about what Heidegger did to Husserl. He banned him from using the library. I think I know from Ingarden (though it is widely known) that Husserl was agonizing over it, because, like most German Jews, especially from the upper class, of higher academic levels, he was a huge German patriot. Husserl’s son was killed in battle, and Husserl would say: “Why does this happen to me? My fallen son wasn’t even decorated for his courage!”. This was an example of a Jew who was more German than the typical ‘pedigree’ German man. Ingarden reminded me of that, but I think that there was something else between Ingarden and Heidegger, an undertone of rivalry for who was the Husserl’s most important disciple (on Ingarden’s part, of course). In any case, Ingarden’s statements about Heidegger’s behavior towards Husserl were unambiguous. Interestingly, he didn’t mention the Nazi involvement of the already mentioned Becker (though it was far greater than Heidegger’s), active in the so-called Rassenforschung (research on race). When I mentioned the name in connection with the aforementioned books on logic, Ingarden said nothing. He could, of course, not know about Becker’s past, but that’s rather unlikely. Did Ingarden know Becker personally? Probably, but I don’t remember him saying anything about it when I lent him Becker’s books. Maybe he muttered something under his breath and I forgot it, but he certainly didn’t talk about Becker’s Nazi contacts, because that I would have remembered. When I found out about Becker years later, I was quite shocked, because it seemed to me that such a good logician and philosopher should be immune to Hitler’s conception of race. At that time, namely in the 1960s, much wasn’t known yet about the attitude of some German philosophers to Nazism. Now there are these monographs on German scholars’ flirting with Nazism; mathematicians, physicists… I will say something else testifying to Ingarden’s attitude towards other philosophers. Like most of the pre-war philosophers, he was not particularly interested in anyone’s political views, or at least he didn’t show it. Jan Szewczyk was open about his communization, it never bothered Ingarden. Although he wished for the Department of Philosophy of Natural Sciences which originated at the Chair of Marxism-Leninism, to be part of the philosophical chairs. But he didn’t mind Marxists working with him if they wanted to. Some did, others not. For example, Jan Pawlica did his PhD in ethics under Ingarden, and I’ve already mentioned Hempolinski and Augustynek. Ingarden said about a certain doctoral thesis (I’m not going to name the author) which he was a su­pervisor for and which met with a negative external review, by someone who considered themselves a Marxist: “It’s difficult, there are very good dissertations, and there are also barely satisfactory but still positive ones. And that’s what this one is”. And he saved that person from flunking, so it shows that he could also be quite forgiving and that he really didn’t care about political contexts at all. Was Marxism a shallow philosophy for him? I don’t think he regarded it as philosophy at all. Ingarden didn’t mention Marx­ism at all, as far as I can remember. But he probably spoke out about it, if asked. Tadeusz Kroński wrote a critical review about the Controversy over the Existence of the World. Ingarden commented: “Kroński wrote that the author lives near Nowa Huta and he has doubts whether the world exists. That is no argument”. You mentioned that this team of Marxist philosophers took some sort of revenge when Ingarden left? This matter could be the subject of a separate discussion, I’m not sure if revenge is the right word. I would rather say it was payback. You have to remember that Marxists were also members of the party, generally sincerely convinced that philosophy should be Marxist. They believed that people who interfere with this objective should be removed from the university. This is how the so-called philosophy of the party was understood back then. I don’t remember (I was just a student) exactly how it went down. Of course, Ingarden was untouchable. Such was the political situation at the time, such was the policy of the authorities at the time, that these great pre-war philosophers were not only tolerated, but even somehow coddled. It was sort of a silent understanding: “We non-Marxist philosophers will not question Marxism, and, on the other hand, you will leave us alone”. It was probably a tactical move on the part of the authorities. They knew that the old ones would eventually go away anyway, and that what would be left was the next generation, which was largely Marxist, so there was no point in making purges, such as in the years 1949-1950. Of course, there were also people like Izydora Dąmbska, on the one hand she was not of Ingarden’s caliber, but she had a few years left before retirement. Her position was stable as a professor and you couldn’t just suddenly say good­bye to her. As long as Ingarden was there, he kept everything in check with his authority. When he retired in 1963, attempts were made to change the structure, the philosophical staff at the Jagiellonian University, so that it would become Marxist. Of course, there were also personal interests, as always in such cases, only this time in accordance with the political interest, supported by the University Committee of the Polish United Workers’ Party, higher party instances and the ministry. I don’t know the details, but Perzanowski described it quite accurately based on documents. Dąmbska was transferred to the Polish Academy of Sciences. Sending someone to the PAS was already a tried and tested tactic, it was not the first case, nor it would be the last one. In this way, Dąmbska lost her university professorship. Nobody defended her anyway. Even those who weren’t in the party. Ingarden was retired, so he couldn’t do anything. Other people were also removed at that time: Janina Makota and Andrzej Półtawski. Makota was moved to the Jagiellonian Library, and Półtawski ended up (I don’t know if it was immediately after) at the Academy of Catholic Theology in Warsaw. This was undoubtedly a political action. We have found an article of yours where you mention Ingarden and your adventures concerning the reading of the Controversy over the Existence of the World on the military test site. I took this book (I think it was volume II) with me (it was 1962) to the military test site. We had some free time, an hour or an hour and a half. The commander of the company, I think he was called Piasecki, he was captain, he would sit outside the door as we were leaving. He saw that I was carrying something tucked under my arm, so he asked, “What have you got there?” And me, “I wanted to read in my free time.” He: “Well, show me”, so I showed him. He opened the book, saw the cover: Roman Ingarden, Controversy over the Existence of the World, and this is what caught his eye, he probably thought it was such a cool title. After a while he turned the page and there stood: Roman Ingarden, Philosophical Works. And suddenly, his facial expression turned to disgust. I think from that point he had it in for me. I am reminded of another anecdote, when Ajdukiewicz commented that since Ingarden moved into the room next to him (in Lviv, at the university), murky water began to flow from the faucet. I don’ know if this is true, but such a story was circulated. If it ever reached Ingarden’s ears, and it probably did, he couldn’t have felt good about it. In fact, when we were making the commemorative book for Ingarden – which I men­tioned before – someone said that Ajdukiewicz refused to write an article. It was depressing news and many people asked why. I think Dąmbska said she would talk to Ajdukiewicz and convince him. She did. However, it is another testimony to the animosity between the two. Ajdukiewicz could have said something like that because he had a rather sharp tongue. However, it is really difficult to say what his attitude towards Ingarden was. You remember the story of Ingarden melancholically recounted in a lecture how he helped Ajdukiewicz in his work on one of the articles (Ajdukiewicz typed and Ingarden dictated to him). Once again: Lviv, Lviv, Lviv. Its inhabitants had, and continue to have, an unusual sentiment for Lviv, for their environment. This somewhat blurred any possible conflicts and disputes. There are probably many anecdotes or legends related to the Controversy over the Existence of the World. This book is considered a difficult work. Yes, very much so. But Bocheński said somewhere that this is the greatest achieve­ment of Western metaphysics. Do you agree with Bocheński’s statement? No. Such statements are exaggerated. There is no such thing as the most important work of metaphysics (and other fields). The Controversy over the Existence of the World did not make it as big as Metaphysics of Aristotle, Summa Philosophica of Thomas Aquinas or even Wolff’s Ontology. Maybe the public reception of The Controversy would be larger if it were written in German? The work was published in German rather quickly, I believe still in the 1960s. Likewise in English, also around that time, but only excerpts, besides badly selected and badly translated. Indeed, had it come out in the 1940s, maybe it could compete with Whitehead, or even with Heidegger. Undoubtedly, it is better philosophy, but it’s hard to say what would have happened, had it been different. Bocheński once stated that Ingarden was the greatest Polish thinker and one of the greatest European thinkers of the 20th century. I know that he valued Ingarden very much and would meet with him. It was kind of a tradition that whenever Polish philosophers met somewhere abroad, they would try to spend some time in each other’s company. I remember Ingarden talking with open affection about the World Congress of Philosophy in Vienna in 1968, about how “the Poles, Bocheński, Lejewski and I went for a walk”. It was obvious that it was something important for them. I think that then they were talking mainly about politics. These were not very philosophical meetings, but rather concerned other matters. Besides, there were a lot of Poles there, so if it was only the three of them who gathered, there must’ve been some reason for it… Can you say something about Ingarden’s student Anna Teresa Tymieniecka? I’ve only seen her once in my life on the occasion of some conference on Ingarden. I don’t know much about her and I was never really interested. She is a very confident person. A handsome lady who left Poland quite early after the war, for some sort of treatment, I think. And if she had contact with Ingarden, it must’ve been immediately after the war. Tymieniecka’s husband must be a very rich man, because she organized her institute with his funds. However, I have the impression that she is not taken too seriously. She really wanted to become a presence in the philosophical community. I mentioned her name once, when I talked to Jaakko Hintikka, I can’t remember why. Hintikka replied that Tymieniecka also tried to establish herself in the logical environment. I expressed my surprise and he said: “Wait, wait, I’ll prove it to you”. He went somewhere and brought back a photo from the 1st International Congress for Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science in Stanford in 1960. And in the picture, you can see Tymieniecka sitting at the table with Tarski and other important personalities. She was young, and of course attractive. The guys stared at her with apparent fancy. “There you have it,” says Hintikka, “here is the proof”. Back to the question, I don’t know if she is excluded or not, rather that she isn’t taken seriously. She is distinguished in the publishing field, Analecta Husserliana. However, she could have contributed more to the dissemination of Ingarden’s ideas. For example, with the money that she has, she could have long ago financed a translation of his books into English. It’s even strange that she hasn’t done it. Krzysztof Zanussi Biographical note Krzysztof Zanussi (June 17, 1939, Warsaw) interests: film, theater He was born in a family with Italian roots. In the years 1955-1959 he studied physics at the University of Warsaw, and then philosophy at the Jagiellonian University from 1959-1962, where Roman Ingarden lectured at the time. Simul­taneously, he was active in the amateur film movement (he had made 11 films, 9 of which received public recognition and numerous awards), and in the years 1962-1967 he studied at the Film and Television Direction Department of the Lodz Film School. He has been the Chairman of the Film Studio “TOR” since 1980. In addition, in the years 1971-1983 he was the Vice-President of the Polish Filmmakers Association. In addition to directing and film production, he has always been actively involved in academic work. He lectured at many film universities, among others the Lodz Film School, National Film School in Great Britain, Columbia Univer­sity, Yale University, University of California Berkeley, University of Cambridge or Rice University in Houston. For over 20 years he has also been conducting classes for students of the High Courses for Scriptwriters and Film Directors in Moscow and has been associated with the University of Silesia for 30 years. Zanussi is the author of many books: O montażu w filmie amatorskim [On Ed­iting an Amateur Film](1968), Rozmowy o filmie amatorskim [Discussing Amateur Film] (1978), six volumes of Scenariusze filmowe [Film Scripts] (published in Italy, Germany and Hungary) Pora umierać [The Time to Die] (1999) – Polish, Russian, Bulgarian, Italian Ukrainian and English-language editions. Między jar­markiem a salonem [Between a Funfair and Salon] (1999) – Polish and Russian edition, “Hybris”, Ukrainian edition (2016), “Life Strategies – How to Eat Your Cake and Have It ”, Polish and Ukrainian (2015), Russian (2017) and English (2018) edition, Imperatyw. Rozmowy w Laskach [Imperative. Conversations in Laski], Ukraine (2018). In the years 1990-1994 he was the President of the Federation European Film Directors (FERA). He was also the President of the EUROVISIONI Association and a member of the Board of the European Film Academy. He currently remains a member of the Board of the Pontifical Council for Culture in Vatican, the Polish Academy of Learning, the PEN Club and the Polish Writers’ Association. He has been awarded honorary doctoral degrees by: the Gerasimov Institute of Cinematography in Moscow, “I.L. Caragiale” (Bucharest), the European Hu­manities University (Minsk), the Bulgarian University (Sofia), the University of Film and Television (Saint Petersburg), the Catholic University of Lublin, the University of Opole, the Yanka Kupala State University of Grodno, the Univer­sity of Lodz, the Pázmány Péter Catholic University (Budapest), the Catholic University (Valencia). He is also a recipient of the prestigious Luka Brajnovic Award of the University of Navarra. Zanussi’s filmography includes dozens of feature films, numerous short films and television films: feature films (selection): • 1969 – Struktura kryształu [The Structure of Crystals], feature debut • 1971 – Życie rodzinne [Family Life] – Za ścianą [Behind the Wall] • 1973 – Iluminacja [The Illumination] – The Catamount Killing, co-production: USA, Germany • 1974 – Bilans kwartalny [The Quarterly Balance] • 1976 – Barwy ochronne [Camouflage] • 1978 – Spirala [Spiral] • 1979 – Wege in der Nacht, co-production: Germany, France • 1980 – Constans [The Constant Factor] – Kontrakt [Contract] • 1981 – Z dalekiego kraju [From a Far Country], co-production: Italy, Great Britain • 1982 – Imperatyw [Imperative], co-production: Germany, France – The Unapproachable, co-production: Germany, USA • 1984 – Rok spokojnego słońca [A Year of the Quiet Sun], co-production: Poland, Germany, USA • 1985 – Paradygmat [Paradigm], co-production: France, Italy, Germany • 1988 – Gdzieśkolwiek jest, jeśliś jest… [Wherever You Are…], co-production: Poland, Germany, Great Britain • 1989 – Stan posiadania [Inventory], co-production: Poland, Germany • 1990 – Życie za życie. Maksymilian Kolbe [Life for a Life: Maximillian Kolbe], co-production: Poland, Germany • 1991/92 – Dotknięcie ręki [The Silent Touch], co-production: Poland, Denmark, Great Britain • 1995 – Cwał [At Full Gallop] • 1997 – Brat naszego Boga [Our God’s Brother], co-production: Poland, Italy, Germany • 2000 – Życie jako śmiertelna choroba przenoszona drogą płciową [Life as a Fatal Sexually Transmitted Disease] • 2002 – Suplement [The Supplement] • 2005 – Persona non grata, co-production: Poland, Russia, Italy • 2007 – Il sole nero [Black Sun], Italy • 2008 – Serce na dłoni [And a Warm Heart], co-production: Poland, Ukraine • 2009 – Rewizyta [Revisited] • 2014 – Obce ciało [Foreign Body], co-production: Poland, Russia, Italy • 2018 – Eter [Ether], co-production: Poland, Ukraine, Hungary, Lithuania, Italy short films (selection): • 1966 – Śmierć prowincjała [The Death of a Provincial], diploma film – Przemyśl, TV, document, Poland – Maria Dąbrowska, TV, document, Poland • 1967 – Komputery [Computers] – Twarzą w twarz [Face to Face], TV, document • 1968 – Zaliczenie [Credit], TV – Krzysztof Penderecki, TV, document, Poland • 1970 – Góry o zmierzchu [Mountains at Dusk], TV, Poland – Die Rolle [The Role], TV, Federal Republic of Germany • 1972 – Hipoteza [Hypothesis], TV, German Federal Republic • 1987 – Mia Varsovia [My Warsaw], TV, Italy • 1992 – Muzyka w Warszawskim getcie [Music in the Warsaw Ghetto], documentary, co-production Poland, Germany – Felietony. Rozmowa z Krzysztofem Zanussim [Feuilletons / Interview with Krzysztof Zanussi], documentary • 1993 – Chopin a la Gare Central, TV, co-production: TVP and France – Rozmowa z lordem Yehudi Menuhinem [Conversation with Lord Yehudi Menuhin], Kopp Television, German and Russian TV • 1995 – Dama z łasiczką [Lady with an Ermine], BBC, documentary (4 min) – Danish Girls Show Everything, Danish Film Institute – Non abbiate paura [Do Not Be Afraid], documentary, Italy, USA, • 1997 – Re Pescatore, TV, Italy • 2005 – Solidarność, Solidarność (Czołgi) [Solidarnosc, Solidarnosc („The Tanks”)], TV television films (selection): • 1975 – Nachdienst [Mercy Payable in Advance], TV movie, Germany • 1977 – Anatomie Stunde [Anatomy Lesson], TV film, Germany – Haus der Frauen [House of Women], TV movie, Germany – Lutosławski, Penderecki, Baird, documentary, Denmark, Germany • 1979 – Mein Krakau [My Krakow], documentary, Germany • 1981 – Die Versuchung, TV movie, Germany, Switzerland • 1982 – Vaticano, documentary, Italy • 1984 – Blaubart, TV movie, Germany, Switzerland • 1987 – Erloschene Zeiten [Time That Passed], TV movie, Germany • 1989 – Napoleon, the first part of a 6-episode series, France • 1990 – Lutosławski, documentary, Great Britain – Das lange Gesprach mit dem Vogel [The Long Conversation with a Bird], TV movie, Germany, Great Britain • 1991 – Jelcyn – moja Rosja [Jelcyn – My Russia], documentary, Germany, France, Poland, Russia • 1995/96 – Opowieści weekendowe [Weekend Stories], 8 episodes TVP series • 1999 – Skowronek [Skylark], TV theater • 2003 – Sesja kastingowa [Casting Session], TV theater • 2008 – Głosy wewnętrzne [The Internal Voices], TV theater Zausssi is a respected theater and opera director. He directs, among others, in theaters in: Milan, Rome, Palermo, Syracuse, Bonn, Moscow, Bremen and Basel. His films have won numerous prestigious awards and distinctions at International Film Festivals, including in: Cannes, Venice or Moscow. Zanussi was awarded, among others, the Commander’s Cross with the Star of the Order of Polonia Restituta, Commandeur d’l’Ordre des Arts et des Lettres (France), David di Donatello (Italy), Officer’s Cross of the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic, Commander’s Cross of the Order “For Merits to Lithuania”, Order of Prince Yaroslav the Wise, granted by the President of Ukraine. He has directed several dozen theater performances and operas, including: dramatic performances (selection): • Ken Kesey, Lot nad kukułczym gniazdem [One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest], Krakow, 1979 • Eugene Ionesco, Król umiera [Exit the King], Neue Schaübühne, Munich, 1980 • Sławomir Mrożek, Rzeźnia [The Slaughterhouse], Milan, 1983 • Tom Stoppard, Dzień i noc [Day and Night], Stadt Theather, Bonn, 1983 • Tom Kempiński, Duet na jeden głos [Duet for One], Stadt Theather, Bonn, 1983 • Karol Wojtyła, Hiob [Job], San Miniato, 1984 • Arthur Miller, Wszyscy moi synowie [All My Sons], Munich, 1984 • Harold Pinter, Dawne czasy [Old Times], Munich, 1985 • William Shakespeare, Juliusz Cezar [Julius Caesar], Verona, 1985 • Krzysztof Zanussi, Edward Żebrowski, Gry kobiece [Women’s Games], Paris, 1986 • Harold Pinter, Zdrada [Betrayal], Munich, 1986 • William Shakespeare, Juliusz Cezar [Julius Caesar], Rome, 1986 • Krzysztof Zanussi, Edward Żebrowski, Gry kobiece [Women’s Games], Paris, 1989 • Ugo Betti, Królowa i powstańcy [The Queen and the Rebels], dir. Krzysztof Zanussi and Tadeusz Bradecki, Rome, 1990 • Krzysztof Zanussi, Edward Żebrowski, Gry kobiece [Women’s Games], Mon­treal, 1991 • Krzysztof Zanussi, Edward Żebrowski, Gry kobiece [Women’s Games], Mos­cow, 1991 • Rocco Familiari, Prezydent [President], Rome, Florence, 1992 • Ariel Dorfman, Śmierć i dziewczyna [Death and the Maiden], Teatr Nowy, Poznań, 1993 • Ariel Dorfman, Śmierć i dziewczyna [Death and the Maiden], Berlin, 1993 • Julien Graqu, Król-rybak [The Fisherman King] (Il Re Pescatore), San Mini­ato, 1997 • Joseph Delteil, L’uomo che vide Francesco, San Miniato, 1998 • Rocco Familiari, Herodiada i Salome [Herodiade and Salome] (Heriodas e Sa­lomé), Rome, 1998 • David Hare, Zdaniem Amy [Amy’s View] (Amys Welt), Essen, 2000 • David Auburn, Dowód [Proof], (Der Beweis), Essen 2002 • Jean Cocteau, Straszni rodzice [Terrible Parents], Rome, 2002 • Eric-Emmanuel Schmitt, Małe zbrodnie małżeńskie [Small Marriage Crimes], Hamburg 2005 • Eric-Emmanuel Schmitt, Małe zbrodnie małżeńskie [Small Marriage Crimes], Kiev, 2007 • Otho Eskin, Duet [Duet], Novosibirsk, 2008 • Friedrich Dürrenmatt, Romulus Wielki [Romulus the Great], Polonia Theater, Warsaw 2009 • Euripides, Medea, Syracuse, 2009 • David Lindsay-Abaire, Rabbit Hole, Amberg, 2010 • David Auburn, Dowód [Proof] (Der Beweis), Moscow 2010 • Ariel Dorfman, Śmierć i dziewczyna [Death and the Maiden], Minsk 2010 • Arthur Miller, Wszyscy moi synowie [All My Sons], Yekaterinburg 2010 • Rocco Familiari, Zapach [Scent], Perm 2011 • Eugene Ionesco, Król umiera [Exit the King], Yekaterinburg 2011; Moscow 2012 • Willy Russell, Edukacja Rity [Educating Rita], Yekaterinburg, Moscow 2012 • Rocco Familiari, Donne allo Specchio, Italy 2013 • Michael McKeever, 37 pocztówek [37 Postcards], Moscow 2013 • Krzysztof Zanussi, Edward Żebrowski, Gry kobiet [Women’s Games], Baku, Azerbaijan 2014 • Krzysztof Zanussi, Hybris [Hybris], Lithuania 2016 operas (selection): • Dominique Probst, Maximilian Kolbe. Text: Eugene Ionesco (co-direction with Tadeusz Bradecki), Rimini, 1988; St. Etienne, 1989 • Alexander von Zemlinsky, Narodziny infantki. Tragedia florencka [The Birth­day of the Infanta. A Florentine Tragedy]. Text: Oscar Wilde, Opern Theater, Basel, 1989 • Karol Szymanowski, Król Roger [King Roger]. Text: Jarosław Iwaszkiewicz, Karol Szymanowski, Stadt Theather, Bremen, 1986; Teatro Massimo, Palermo, 1992 • Arthur Honegger, Antygona [Antigone]. Text: Sophocles, in translation by Jean Cocteau, 1992 • Igor Stravinsky, Król Edyp [Oedipus Rex]. Text: Jean Cocteau, Teatro Massimo, Palermo, 1993 • Francis Poulenc, La Voix Humaine, Aubade, La Dame de Monte-Carlo. Text: Jean Cocteau, Warsaw Chamber Opera, 2011 Krzysztof Zanussi “…It was me who felt like a monument was passing me by…” Interview conducted by Dominika Czakon and Natalia Anna Michna Do you remember the circumstances of your first meeting with Professor Ingarden? After four years of studying physics, I realized that it would not lead me to the Nobel Prize and any lower stake was out of the question, I began to look around hurriedly where to go, what to do. I won’t hide the fact that there was still the possibility of being drafted into the military if you suspended your studies. I al-ready knew that it wasn’t worth struggling with physics any longer, and that’s when the idea to go to Krakow appeared. It was really inconvenient for me. And on the other hand, it was the only Faculty of Philosophy at a state university from the Elbe to Vladivostok, which was said to be simply normal, that is, in accordance with a curriculum accepted all around Europe. While our Warsaw philosophy, for one, was contemptuously called a ‘state band’, because it was a very Marxist university. Additionally, all of them had a Marxist curriculum. It was said that in Krakow there was only half a year of Marxism, in the third or fourth year in Ingarden’s philosophy. So, for me it was a reason to do this. It was a very hard, tedious thing for an only child, to move out of the house and go to Wawel. It really was a huge task, but I found out that it was this philosophy or none, because I knew that I wouldn’t study Marxism for anything. And so, I found myself under the Professor’s wing, though I had no contact with him apart from attending his lectures and talking to him a few times somewhere in the halls, which was very nice. How do you remember Professor Ingarden? What impression did he make on the students? He was indeed somewhat a literary character. He fulfilled all the requirements of a well-written novel about the world of the academia. At that point I had read Thomas Mann’s works – he didn’t pay attention to the university – but Ingarden would fit perfectly with Settembrini and the others. Around him, you’d feel that it was a world to which there already was a key, and that you could already literary start playing around with it. The Professor was even extremely expressive – today, I can speak about it professionally as a director. He was just so grumpy… – how to put this – he gave the impression of a nobleman, so there were certainly no associations with the social issues of those times. That would be somebody completely different. Did you attended classes led by Professor Ingarden? I attended several of his lectures. To tell you the truth, not much of them is left in my mind, because with all their huge terminology, my random and scarce visits in class – I didn’t have any obligatory classes, I never got that far – did not yield the best results. On the other hand, he was such a loud and sensational figure that there was no hesitation, you had to go there, even if for a little, listen to him, be comforted by the sight of him in the halls, for we knew that we were dealing with a great celebrity, and one that was brought back to glory. After he was humiliated in a way. I remember that – many, many years after his death – I had a discreet conversation with Kołakowski about it. He said that those attacks on Ingarden weighed on his conscience the most. Even while his con-science was also burdened by such great figures as Tatarkiewicz and Kotarbiński. However, I won’t say anything bad about Kołakowski today, because he, in a way, admitted to the evil of his actions and described the motives that pushed him to take them. The reason I refer to him is not because I want to judge him today, but because I remember that he considered Ingarden a figure of great authority, and he admitted that it was reprehensible how they had knocked him down from his position back then. I was studying philosophy, as one’d colloquially say, quite half-heartedly, because at the same time I got into the Lodz Film School for directing and I commuted. So, because of that I skipped out on a lot of classes. Of course, I had my favorite ones, but I already knew it was nothing serious – I was really studying philosophy for fun. What was it that got you into philosophy? Why did you choose this field of study? Philosophy was a sort of a bridge, because it referred to exact sciences while at the same time being my exit way out of something that I had already figured I wouldn’t find myself in. The philosophy of science fascinates me to this day. Today I’m a great believer in Fr. Professor Heller and his thought experiments, because they seem very vibrant to me. Recently, I had the honor of being called in by him for a public debate in the Rzeszów Philharmonic, in which he pre­sented the very foundations of his theology, what I tried really hard to convince him to do in my book. I challenged him to do it because we were all waiting for something like that. And that’s how it happened. This was all a matter Pope John Paul II was involved in as well. Heller and Życiński had managed to con­vince him that it was valuable to draw on the instruments of today’s physics or mathematics, exact sciences. Just like Thomas Aquinas did, only in a completely different context. What I am trying to explain here – carefully, since in layman’s terms – is why it was the easiest for me to move over from physics to philoso­phy. However, it was not the philosophy of Mr. Ingarden. I always looked at phenomenology with admiration, but with a sense of unfamiliarity. And this resulted from a very simple effect. That’s the only reason why I’m even talking about it, because it’s not like my views on phenomenology really matter to any­one! Only that, crossing over from the exact sciences to philosophy, I did not expect accuracy from philosophy. It was completely unnecessary there because it was all still built on foundations of sand. So, I’d thought: why bother? At the time I was very interested in existentialists, who, in fact, somewhat practiced philosophizing literature. They also had a philosophy of life, which I needed desperately. However, I would read what Ingarden wrote about the philosophy of art (because it was already available in Polish) and it was very significant to me as someone already somewhat venturing into the world of art. However, to tell the truth, it also seemed to me that these constructions were completely un­necessary; that I can do without them and that I prefer philosophy practiced in a more feuilleton-like way. Let the exact sciences build the precise constructions. And this is a temperamental issue, it’s a matter of where I came from. Those who come over from the humanistic chaos, take pure joy in phenomenology’s coherence. However, this is a question of where you’re coming from. Do you have any memories related to the Ingarden from the time you studied in Krakow? From those years I can remember the circle of people gathered around the Pro­fessor. Mr. and Ms. Półtawski, who lectured there. She lectured in psychology, it certainly was her specialty; then Stróżewski. However, I no longer remember exactly which classes I had with whom. I know that there were workshops with Stróżewski. In fact, we remain friends to this day. I was obviously full of admira­tion for how this department functioned. Particularly because Tischner was one of its doctoral students at the time if I remember correctly. I was in the same year with Tarnowski, now Professor Karol Tarnowski. Only he was the one who took philosophy to heart and graduated in the end, and I was swept away by film, and when Professor Ingarden was no longer there, I no longer felt like commuting to Krakow. Not that he was the reason I had. It’s just that I had a feeling that this department would somehow deteriorate. Not that it did that much, it held on for a long time, and it keeps on going – there are worse ones. To his credit, the Professor left a legacy, also an organizational one. His death was something totally unexpected. I remember that it seemed to me that everything had collapsed; that Krakow had somehow collapsed, so why go there, if he’s not there at the top. I also remember who the lecturer in logic was. A professor without a leg. He had a prosthetic and to me, as a filmmaker, he was immensely intriguing, because sometimes he’d come on two legs, and sometimes only on one. Depending on whether it was slippery outside. This prosthetic device worked very well, but sometimes it was uncomfortable and then he’d have two walking sticks instead of one. His name eludes me. I really appreciated this lecturer. There was also unforgettable Ms. Gromska! Madam Professor, because she was a fighter for emancipation from before the First World War, a participant of marches and manifestations. She forced all these terrible feminizations… – I don’t know, maybe you support these? – I find all these attempts to be so absurd, distorted and unnecessary, because they really soak through with emotions that are neg­ative. It seems that Ms. Doctor is much less than Doctor – it’s just anybody. So why do it? In Polish many of the feminizations sound ugly and they are simply unnecessary. This is like the pedantry of the neophytes – if one is freshly con­verted, it is terribly important to them. Ms. Gromska was already active like that at the Department? Yes, of course. Ms. Izydora Dąmbska was the second woman there. However, I had a better relationship with Ms. Dąmbska, because Ms. Gromska was very isolated. True, she taught us all about Greece extremely well, but she was an in­accessible fortress. At least the men did not have access, under no circumstances. Was Ingarden also quite distant to the students? I was such a poor student. I don’t mean poor in terms of results, just a first-, then second-year student. It was me who felt like a monument was passing me by; that you could hear the crashing of marble, granite or some other material. Maybe it was just me who was so terrified. Also, some legends reached me in the family, that someone in his circle studied in Lviv before, so that’s why he grew to become such a beacon. He was someone who seemed to be from another century in the past. Although he was not as old as I remember. I don’t know which year exactly he was born, but when he died, he must have been around his seventies, no more than that. I remember him from his sixties. There was also, of course, the legend of Edith Stein, we all got excited about it. We were excited about how it was between them, how they could’ve talked to each other and disputed. And back then, nobody even knew much about their letters. We knew that there were some, but they were neither translated nor publicized, as far as I can I recall. And everyone was curious about them. We would all also look for photography to see if Stein was pretty. It made us so curious, because the Professor looked like, let’s just say, like he was popular with the ladies. So, the matter was interesting, and Stein, in turn, made an impression of an impetuous person, who she obviously was. And this combination was terribly intriguing, and everyone wanted to know what kind of relationship it could be. Knowing that she was an intellectual, but, after all, they are also people. After many years, I was producing a film about Edith Stein, though it never got popular here. It was made by a Hungarian director, but in my opinion the film was very interesting. And the character, who was modelled a bit after Ingarden, and on some other characters as well, was a bit artificial. Is there anything significant that you remember from Ingarden’s lectures? At that time, whenever he talked, I’d listen for a hint of an accent, or some kind of a basic stumble. You could sense out Lviv at times, maybe just a slight elongation of a syllable. I’m exaggerating now, it was almost undetectable. It’s the matter of the con­struction of vowels specific to the Borderlands. Besides, the Lviv speech was a literary language, it was spoken in the theaters, it was spoken at the university, there was no reason to speak in Warsaw accents. The Warsaw pronunciation spread over the radio and, frankly speaking, we have adopted one of the ugliest versions of Polish as universal. And today we cannot really read Słowacki or Mickiewicz aloud, because without this Eastern melody it just doesn’t work, even the rhymes don’t seem right at times. That is precisely why Ingarden intrigued me in terms of language. What was it about him that he was both Polish and German, or rather Polish and Austrian; that he participated in the community of the philosophical German language, in which all that important philosophy was created in the 20th century. That was how Ingarden learned, at Husserl’s side in Germany. Yes. However, what kind of view he had on Husserl’s behavior, that we couldn’t really bring ourselves to ask. Or what he thought about Heidegger. You couldn’t really ask that either, but it was terribly interesting. There was, however, this distance, there was no way that some cheeky student would ask such questions. I remember the legend about the building at Piłsudski St., where the philosophy department was. That building was cleverly divided. After all, the entire ‘state band’ was there too, meaning all the Marxist lecturers in all faculties where Marxism was com­pulsory. And as a state religion it was lectured quite laboriously. I remember that I had a military study and Marxism in all studies I was submitted to. Three times. I was a student for a long time, it took me 10 years, and these items would repeat over and over again. It was such a drag. Anyway, I had a few honest aver­sions of my own, because I had to go to Schaff’s classes, which weren’t even half as bad as Bauman’s, which I also had to attend and this was incredibly annoying. He was so aggressive and so provocative towards students. A thinker looking for an argument, just let him smell the slightest bit of resistance and he will come after you. They were quite horrible indeed, those gentlemen who – as you’d say in German – ‘einpauken’; who would tirelessly hammer that faith of theirs into your head. And now, of course, this entire group remains in Krakow to teach in the other faculties, so that every physicist, and every philologist and who-knows-who-else would get a portion of Marxism. And now it seems to me that this is not a legend, that a separate entrance had really been opened for them. It was said that there was an entry for philosophers and an entry for Marxists. And this distinction seemed very witty to me, since Marxists should not be considered philosophers. Not because their doctrine is worthy of con­demnation, because in the end it is a doctrine. Only that they busied themselves doing something else, they were indoctrinating, instead of teaching. I had my experiences with it in the film school, many years later. Thanks to the fact that I dabbled with philosophy at one point, maybe I was cheekier, a little bit better at talking back. Anyway, this is where philosophy came in handy in my life, that I started to articulate my thoughts a bit more decently. And at the film school in Łódź, I was once at the entrance exam, where a Marxist came in, because it was a commission exam, and he was testing the candidates. And it turns out, he would give good grades to those candidates who spoke with Marxist theses while making them of an absolute nature. However, if someone simply referred to them, for example by saying “according to Marx”, or “according to Engels”, the grade would go down immediately. I noticed it and said, “What are you doing here? You know I’m going to go and warn the other students.” He told me he didn’t care for what they knew, only if they believed. That they didn’t mind them not knowing, they would still have the chance to teach them. To which I said: “Professor, you won’t achieve anything this way. As soon as I leave the room, I will warn everyone that this what they have to say”. He says, “That’s good enough for me. They just have to say it”. He didn’t try make them think that way. This is the second degree of hypocrisy. I mean, they’re supposed to say something they don’t believe, but they’re supposed to make others believe that they do. And he knows it’s a lie, but he won’t be bothered by it. The Marxist ranks were already thinning at that point, but you can’t really think it odd that I’ve retained dislike towards them to this day and that I’m overwhelmed by fury when looking at the postmodernists they grew into. After all, these are former Marxists who found a way not to say sorry. Had you ever been to Ingarden’s seminars? No, no, because they wouldn’t let, pardon the language, such brats inside. Really? I wouldn’t think they did. It was always very crowded. You could have squeezed in for a lecture, but I did not have the courage to do that with a seminar. Anyway, I think they would’ve kicked me out. When it comes to the circle of people gathered around the Professor, who do you remember? I remember Ms. Gierulanka. She was such an ornate character. I remember her vivid femininity. She was the opposite of a dried-up person; she was so alive. And in addition, her name made you think of a maiden and it was so encouraging. Do you recall any jokes or anecdotes told by Ingarden? Yes, I remember jokes. He was a joker in general, and it was noticeable. He had a sense of humor. He certainly had a vision that also took in funny things. His lectures, as far as I can remember, were classically academic, that is, he led the thought. All philosophers weigh their words, they speak so very cautiously, so that they don’t spoil the sentence with a wrong verb, and so did he. You could sense it, and so we thought at first that it was the language barrier. That maybe he thought in German and maybe that was what slowed him down, ever so slightly. However, maybe the reason was that he strived to speak very precisely. Did you have any exams with Ingarden? No, I had not reached that level of initiation. I think that Karol Tarnowski took something with him at the end of his studies, but it was in the fourth, fifth year. Do you have any memories related to Professor Ingarden’s dog Dżok? I heard of him. I think I’ve only seen him in the streets. I’d never seen it at the fac­ulty, but apparently it would come along sometimes and was put up somewhere, so that we didn’t kick it or something. It was definitely part of the furnishings. Ingarden was interested in photography. Do you know anything about it? Yes. And I can even remember that when I admitted that I was doing something in this film school of mine (because I had to report that I was studying there at the same time), the Professor asked me about it. Asking how it was with photo­graphy in that school. Do you teach it separately? How do you learn photography? Such questions about the film school. Which of course surprised me, because I thought we would be talking about contents, meanings, substance, and here he was talking about photography. Did you talk to Professor about film? No, never. Later I read what he wrote about film. This paper is indeed regarded a flagship text by filmologists. They love to be smart about subjects that nobody really seriously theorized about. It’s still not really clear what should be done about it. Meanwhile, reality is going forward and in a moment these will be archival memories of an event long gone. It will probably happen, but I hope that I won’t live to see it, because I really like film as it is today – in a dark room on a big screen. However, it’s already diminishing a lot. Is that how you perceive the changes currently taking place in film, in cin­ematography? I guess something different is coming, because this entire network commu­nication that’s appeared actually marginalizes the traditional relationship of sender-recipient. And that is also what that dark room was for. It was someone bringing their message to those who were sitting there. Now everyone wants it loud, to talk, to get tired in a way in this process, to participate. I am not interested in how I would tell it myself. I prefer someone to tell me the story. However, this is changing so rapidly, along with this great emancipation, which, in my opinion, is the great misfortune of our world. Everyone feels empowered to do everything. There is a lack of subordination, of basic modesty: if you don’t know about this, then sit quietly. And today everyone feels obligated to say something. I had a grandmother who trained me in this matter. She didn’t manage to succeed, but she remains in my memory. Whenever someone from the family would open their mouth at the table to say anything at all she’d always say: “think again if we really need to hear that”. Leopold Zgoda “…Ingarden was a master, but Dąmbska was the one who brought us up…” Leopold Zgoda “…Ingarden was a master, but Dąmbska was the one who brought us up…” Interview conducted by Dominika Czakon and Karol Kapelko What triggered your interest in philosophy? I was born in 1937 in one of the mining settlements in today’s Sosnowiec. There, I experienced early childhood and the occupation. After the war, I lived in Kędzierzyn-Koźle (at the time they were two separate cities). I went to school there, I worked there, I passed my final exams after high school in Opole. Be­fore I went to study at a university I had, among others, three years of work practice as an assistant to the Polish State Railways in Kędzierzyn. Such was the family’s need. Kędzierzyn, along with the port on the Odra River in Koźle-Port and its adjacent stations, was an important communication, distribution and reloading center. Almost all transport traveled by train in those days. When my younger brother graduated high school and went to work, I could think about university. With a choice of Wroclaw or Krakow, I chose Krakow, to study law. Incidentally (when dealing with the formalities I went to the wrong dean’s offices), I learned that philosophy was established for a year at the Faculty of Philosophy and History of the Jagiellonian University and, moreover, who conducted the classes. It was enough for me to change my mind and sign up for philosophical studies. This change was no coincidence. The High School in Koźle I attended would make one think. I asked myself how it was that the straight line drawn on the board was not the same straight line I was thinking about. A line – as is known – extends to infinity at both ends. What is this infinity and who made the line like this? I mark a point on the board knowing well that the point has no size. How does it exist then? Math skills did not give answers to these questions. Officially, so much was being said about historical justice, what is – I asked – justice? How can you report on your neighbor just because you want to take their apartment? We experienced such wickedness ourselves. I read a lot. Other activities that I undertook outside of school also made me think. I met people who, despite the painful experiences of the war, despite persecution, loss of their homes, as well as widespread poverty, were able to enjoy life, be with each other, knew how to work conscientiously. The headmaster of the railway station in Kędzierzyn at the time I was working there was the father of my schoolmate. I was exceptionally impressed by his attitude, self-control, and understanding towards his subordinates. I knew that he had studied philosophy before the war. So, I would be thinking, why couldn’t I study it? Not knowing very much, and despite the playful stereotypes, I had a good opinion about philosophy. Around ten of us got accepted. This number changed over time. The entrance exam, apart from the exam in logic and one other chosen subject (I took Polish), was conducted by Professor Izydora Dąmbska, a student and assistant lecturer of Kazimierz Twardowski in Lviv, and Professor Daniela Gromska – as is known – a translator of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. I remember, among other things, the question about the direction in philosophy which was of particular interest for me. Not knowing what to say, I answered that I was interested in existential problems and, moreover, that Albert Camus was particularly close to my heart. I didn’t know yet that the author of The Plague would be my favorite thinker and writer to this day. I did not mention, at that time officially obligatory, Marxism in the exam. I was the most afraid of the result of the exam from the high school material, which was conducted by Professor Włodzimierz Szewczuk for all fields of study throughout the Faculty. To my surprise, I was accepted. Formally a student, I received accommodation immediately at the famous “Żaczek” dormitory. I started to carefully observe everything and everyone and find out who was who. There was the charming Joanna, the daughter of Jerzy Turowicz, who found it so difficult to come to classes on time, there was Jerzy Aleksandrowicz, the son of the famous Professor Julian Aleksandrowicz, who was already studying medicine at that time, there was Beata Szymańska, Jerzy’s later wife who was in Polish Studies. In time, Halina Poświatowska joined. There were my dormmates, just like me, straight out of high school. The striving for accuracy and simple expression already distinguished, among others, the youngest of us – Andrzej Wroński. The resourceful Władysław Cichoń from Myślenice, he had a difficult childhood and many years of work behind him and had already com­pleted his first year of studies. Similarly, Adam Węgrzecki and Janusz Jaworowski were also after their first year of philosophical studies. Only Adam had completed two years of chemistry, and Janusz nearly five years in prison at Montelupich St. in Krakow for participation in an illegal youth organization in Bialystok. After graduation Janusz moved to Warsaw and worked in the Staszic Palace at the Institute of Philosophy and Sociology of the Polish Academy of Sciences. After some time, the talented and well-educated, Piotr Waszczenko briefly appeared in the dormitory. He was one of those classmates of mine Professor Ingarden had especially high hopes for and who ultimately got lost in life. When the Professor received the Herder Prize and one scholarship for one of his students in Vienna (1968), Piotr was the one to receive it. I would include Janek Szewczyk in the group of people relatively close to me, only from outside the dorm. An active participant in the Warsaw Uprising, imprisoned in Germany, an emigrant, after his return from England to the country defined ideologically and politically, he’d impress others with his courage, attentiveness, creative interest in the philosophy of human labor, conscious par­ticipation in many discussions, sensitivity to pain and suffering. Hence, I think, his closeness to not only Janusz Jaworowski, but also Fr. Józef Tischner. Janek would try to link phenomenology with Marxism. Over the years, he was increasingly critical of the real world of socialism. He died in a car accident. There are those who claim that it wasn’t just an accident. In time, I became friends with Andrzej Kowal – a psychiatrist, and with Jurek Perzanowski. These friendships lasted until their last days. Despite such different experiences, origins, interests and ages, we were all able to enjoy our lives together and talk to each other. Was philosophy the main area of your interests? From our first meeting at the entrance examination, Professor Dąmbska became close to my heart. She impressed with her attitude, unwavering character, un­derstanding and patience, but also with a versatile approach to the issues under discussion. She was a skeptic in theory, but with a clearly defined hierarchy of values and importance of matters. I attended all her classes and wrote a master’s thesis on the practical philosophy of Tadeusz Kotarbiński under her supervision. After Professor Ingarden’s retirement in 1963, she was transferred to the Polish Academy of Sciences and deprived of classes with students, but she still continued to organize private meetings and conducted a weekly methodological seminar which I took part in. I know that private meetings were organized by Professor Ingarden, only I never took part in those. Despite the short ‘thaw’ after October 1956, it was still the time of the Pol­ish People’s Republic. The first floor at Manifestu Lipcowego St. 13 (formerly Wolska St., today’s Piłsudskiego St.), thanks to our professors, was an oasis of freedom. Freedom of thought and moral responsibility which reaches into the depths of human hearts and engages the whole person. But at least one more of the Lviv professors had a significant impact on me – the sociologist, Professor Paweł Rybicki. There was a custom, though it wasn’t mandatory, to have or be in the process of getting a second degree. I went into sociology. Professor Rybicki’s lectures and seminar were also a beautiful school of thought, only one more oriented towards social and practical matters. For a short time, I was even thinking of making sociology the main direction of my further interests. I stuck with philosophy, but social and practical problems are still close to my heart today. I am looking for inspiration for, but also the concretization of philosophical reflections in them. I remember how on some occasion Professor Ingarden, who was then the vice-dean, asked about my other studies. When I said that I was interested in sociology, the Professor smiled and good-naturedly remarked: “I was asking about science – mathematics, physics, these are sciences, and you’re telling me about sociology”. Wroński and Perzanowski went in that direction. Today they already have their successors. Were the Professor’s words directed at me words of criticism? I think that these were words dictated by the concern for the reliability exact sciences teach. The ones who taught us this reliability, accuracy, responsibility for the word were our masters. For me, Professor Rybicki was among them. At the foundation of their master hood, and I also mean Kotarbiński here, you can find organizational and creative achievements of Professor Twardowski at the University of John Casimir in Lviv. Returning to the question about my interests, I can say that I also studied pedagogy. I assumed that I might want to get married, and if marriage, then also children, who need to be raised. I also understood the social tasks of ped­agogy. I was almost at the point of writing a second master’s thesis, following the example of Władysław Cichoń. I remember during one of the seminars, when I criticized the textbook of Ivan Kairov, recommended by the Ministry of Education, in which the thought was that what is moral serves the cause of communism, and then I was subjected to ‘just’ criticism (let us omit the name of the lecturer), I asked myself, what do I need this for? I never showed up there again. But I remember interesting classes in the history of education, and, moreover, in various fields of psychology. With great interest, along with Adam Węgrzecki, I also listened to a lecture by Professor Maria Susułowska, who, after returning from the States, talked about the latest directions in psychoanalysis. Adam, more interested in psychology (where he met his future wife, Maria), also went to classes in psychiatry led by Professor Antoni Kępiński. Professor Dąmbska, aware of my interests in painting, suggested the history of art to me. But – as I thought back then – it would only be a matter of well-conceived luxury. I stuck with sociology. I had to grow to understand how our tastes can weigh on each of our lives. It is enough to recall Zbigniew Herbert’s poem Potęga smaku [The Power of Taste], dedicated to Professor Dąmbska, to know how important these matters are. When I was actively involved on the side of August 1980, I could see how deeply the lack of good taste, the simultaneous lack of aesthetic and moral sense in matters of common good can really harm us. I tried not to forget about these life and practical experiences during the didactic classes with my students. Looking back at your life, do you think that philosophy was the right choice? I have never regretted the fact that I chose philosophy as the first field of study. It’s just that I understand philosophy more broadly, less professionally. For me it is not only a historically shaped set of problems, but above all a definite way of being. It is an art of life oriented towards a rich world of values. The love of goodness, truth and beauty is the most important here. And if love, then also striving for, and caring for what you love. The ancients taught the love of wisdom, and that’s what our masters taught us. And, moreover, they taught that everyone has to go their own way, only consciously, carefully and responsibly. That is, making choices and taking action on your own responsibility. This is what Ingarden explicitly wrote about and what he taught. I have always been and still am sure that the etymological meaning of the word ‘philosophy’ still applies. I never thought of working at the university. And when I asked what I would do after graduation, I’d reply that I was working before my studies, so I would surely find my way in my life after graduation as well. I admit that it wasn’t easy. Szewczyk, for the sake of my future (or so he said), urged me to join the party. “How can a party be good,” he asked, “if people like you don’t join it?” He had invited me to the famous former “Barcelona” (at the corner of Piłsudski St. and Straszewski St.), hence my answer that such agitation must cost a lot. Janek got upset, but not enough to let us part in an­ger. He wanted me to stay at the Jagiellonian University. I had no doubt that it was an unacceptable proposition. And, moreover, I would have to work with Professor Zdzisław Augustynek among philosophizing physicists at the Chair of Philosophy of Nature. I explained that I was not a physicist. Szewczyk replied: “If Augustynek can make a physicist into a philosopher, he surely can make a philosopher into a physicist”. Węgrzecki, who recommended me to Professor Leszek Kasprzyk, under whom he had been working for a year at the Krakow Academy of Economics (currently the University of Economics) was the one who effectively helped me. We really owe a lot to Professor Kasprzyk. He spread a protective umbrella above us against ideological and party pressure. Professor Dąmbska, considering that I could have this kind of pressure, suggested Leszek Kołakowski as a super­visor for my dissertation. I chose Professor Kasprzyk. I wrote a thesis entitled Herbert Spencer and the Twilight of English Utilitarianism under his direction. I’d like to add that Professor Dąmbska graciously became its reviewer. The day of the defense of the master’s thesis was for me an exceptionally beautiful, sunny and significant day. The examination committee consisted of Professor Dąmbska and Professor Ingarden. The first one to go was Poświatowska, who wrote a dissertation under Professor, then came my turn. Referring to the concept of a reliable teacher in Kotarbiński’s ethics, Professor Ingarden asked about a thinker who was critical of the concept of the ethics of mercy. I was well prepared, and I had no doubt that it was about Friedrich Nietzsche. Halina waited for my exit and so did Adam. I gave Halina a bouquet of red poppies in front of the St. Mary’s church. We were delighted with ourselves. In the evening there was a meeting in Halina’s room. She sat on the windowsill, Professor Jan Leszczyński sat on the floor, and we were all very much afraid that stubborn Ha­lina would fall out the window. To this day, whenever I am on a train and see the red heads of poppies in the summer field, I remember that joyful June of 1963. In the summer I worked at a camp with teenagers, and then, for a good few months, I organized magazines and made a catalog of things in the PAS Library on Sławkowska St. I had an offer to work at the psychological clinic of the Polish State Railways in Warsaw, for a short time I also thought about a high school in Zamość, but the fact that Krakow remained my city of choice, and that it is still the city of my children and grandchildren, is one I have never regretted. Hence my concern for Krakow, with its rich past, to develop creatively. Hence – as it seems to me – my involvement in the work of the local government of Krakow and Małopolska after 1989. Were you looking for answers to some important questions in philosophy? Yes, of course. Man is a being that realizes himself in action and asks questions. The Socratic question: How to live? was and is most important to me. This is not a question about how to earn money, how to build bridges or manage a company. But the answer to such a basic and general question is also important when earning money, building bridges and managing enterprises. This is a strategic question in which we think about life taken in its entirety, it is closely connected with the question about human nature and the world in which a human lives. There are many answers, you have to make choices, you have search and answer, always on your own responsibility. Others can help or harm us in the venture. Well-understood philosophy can only help us. Help in the fight against thought­lessness in and around us. Our masters taught this kind of philosophy. Did Professor Ingarden influence you from the beginning? It couldn’t have been otherwise. The Professor was fascinating in his very way of being, talking, lecturing. He was building his system in front of us, or rather with us. He taught, like other philosophers and scholars, whom he lectured on or referred to, to “do justice”. Besides, especially in the aesthetic classes, you could simply see what he was talking about. I remember that when I was in the Louvre for the first time and viewed Venus from Milo from all sides, I also had the figure of the Professor standing near the window, teaching us the “art of looking” right before my eyes. On the other hand, it seemed to me that the Professor was quite detached from the practical aspects of life. The one whose views I felt closer to was, as I have already mentioned, Professor Dąmbska, but Ingarden’s impact has strengthened over the years. When during a conference devoted to the philosophy of Ingarden in 1975 I gave a lecture entitled “Value and Deed”1, Wegrzecki aptly noticed that “it is better to start from Kotarbiński and end with Ingarden, than the other way round”. I admit to philosophy, until recently I was a didactic teacher, but with the figure of Ingarden in mind, I know that it is not enough to have the title of doctor or professor to be a philosopher. I also know that you can go your own way and remain a follower. Do you perhaps remember your first meetings with Ingarden? It must have been the first class in the first year. I can’t remember the details. It happened that I listened to the lecture as if viewing a musical score, the nota­tion of which you don’t understand, but which is in itself a work of art. It was incredible. I could look at the Professor and forget that one should listen to understand. The Professor did not facilitate this task. “There is a bar” – he said – “over which you will either manage to jump over or not. And if you don’t, it’s better to be a shoemaker, and not admit to philosophy”. And so it was from the first class. In these words, not a slightest hint of contempt for a shoemaker or a cleaner could be felt. They contained a stoic postulate to be yourself and do what you can do best. What’s more, for the benefit of others. I knew that university is not one of the vocational training schools. It is, in essence, a place of in-depth reflection on the manifold manifestations of human activity. The philosophical reflection plays an inalienable role in this reflection. We knew it, but it took time to make sure it was that way. It is often said that philosophy is not a science. There was a time when Ko­tarbiński, in the name of accuracy, explicitly demanded to renounce the term ‘philosophy’. However, it was Kotarbiński, not Ingarden or Dąmbska, who opted for metaphysics in the spirit of reism. It was probably the only metaphys­ical system developed as part of the Lvov-Warsaw school. Professor Ingarden was more cautious, hence his extensive ontology, conceived as an introduc­tion to metaphysics. Even more cautious – with her criticism – was Professor 1 See: Leopold Zgoda, “Wartość i czyn,” in W kręgu filozofii Romana Ingardena. Ma­teriały z konferencji naukowej, Kraków 1985, eds. Władysław Stróżewski, and Adam Węgrzecki (Warszawa and Krakow: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, 1995). Dąmbska. Ingarden, being a pupil of Husserl, obviously did not belong to the Lvov-Warsaw School, but Professor Dąmbska surely did. The traditions of this school are continued by Jan Woleński. What did social meetings with your classmates look like? The division into years was not significant. I don’t recall social gatherings being held within the social circle of individual years and extremely strong bonds being formed. It didn’t matter whether the person was in the first or the second year. The Professor’s lectures and seminars were unique, hence our presence in those classes which we were not obligatory. To return to the question about social gatherings, it is worth noting that we had other joint classes, such as foreign languages, civil defense or physical education, which also served to create various intimations. But it seems to me today that what meant the most was where everyone lived. Shared living in the “Żaczek” dormitory was an opportunity for many social meetings and making lasting friendships. I remember that in the first year I lived in a four-person room with Wroński, I remember the fourth year of studies and the room in which I lived with Węgrzecki and Jaworowski very well. There were also meetings in cafes, most often in “Literacka” on Pijarska St. and “Antyczna” in the Main Square. The coffee was cheap. There were also dinners in “Warszawianka” on Dunajewskiego St., “NOT” on Straszewskiego St. was a good meeting place. There was a large hall, which has tables today, where you could wait for those who were never in a hurry. I’d go to “Barcelona” for a beer. When I was asked why there, and the truth is that it was always on the way, I’d answer that this was my way of maintaining a bond with the working class. Please remember that we did not have our own family houses or apartments in Krakow. Meetings in the dormitory weren’t always successful. I remember one of the meetings in the room in “Żaczek”, during which I was ‘delegated’ to buy alcohol. Leaving the store at Straszewski St., bottle in hand, I saw Professor Ingarden who was – ahead of time – going to our seminar. I bowed and stupidly asked: “Professor, straight ahead?” I heard a short “yes”. “Then I Professor,” I said, putting the bottle behind my back, “I am going in the opposite direction”. I returned to the dormitory, interrupted the meeting, mobilizing Janusz and Adam to go to the seminar. When the Professor saw us, he smiled slightly, but said nothing. I also remember that a picture-portrait at Professor Gierulanka’s, in which the Professor was looking after someone, caught my attention. Danuta, a faithful student of her beloved Professor, laughed: “The Professor is probably looking back at a pretty girl”. The Professor was good-na­tured, capable of forgiveness and enjoying life. There was a time when I was at Poświatowska’s every day. Her green room, on the second floor of the Writers’ House at Krupnicza St. (there was a canteen on the first floor, and in the evenings meetings would be there), saw many in­teresting people, including many friends from the university. Hence the lack of surprise when one day I found the Professor in her room, but the Professor was surprised and asked: “What is this gentleman doing here?” Halina’s reply was joyful and short: “Professor, it’s Poldek.” I owe a lot to Halina and her friendship. I will add that everyone would call her ‘Haśka’, though I never did. After the master’s exam we went to Pro­fessor Dąmbska to thank her. When she left the room to prepare tea (her sister, Ms. Rudecka was not there), Halina gave me both hands over the table to kiss and said: “But I will go alone to the Professor”. That’s the way she was, joyful, spontaneous and natural. This is also how her poetry is read to this day: sensual, natural, but not vulgar. Last year, 50 years passed since her death, and young people still read those poems of hers. What did Professor Ingarden’s classes look like compared to those of other professors? I remember the words of Wroński: “Ingarden was a master, but Dąmbska was the one who brought us up”. The Professor’s masterhood and reliability were indu­bitable. The Professor’s lectures were always fascinating, during Ms. Dąmbska’s classes – especially if ill prepared in the field of logic or mathematics – one could sometimes get the impression that they were boring. It took a lot of attention to be able to appreciate the accuracy of the formulated thoughts. Especially in the analysis of texts and seminar classes. Professor Gromska always had her notes in front of her. Her stoic calm and face with traces of unmistakable beauty could impress. Each of her lectures was very elaborate in detail. But the listeners were few. She was able to lecture for two people very calmly, without the slightest trace of disappointment or surprise. I can’t remember Professor Dąmbska ever being late. Professor Ingarden was late once and apologized. Other instructors also paid attention to discipline. It was very different in sociology. I remember the evening classes and waiting for Professor Rybicki. It wouldn’t surprise anyone that the time to begin had passed. Those present would calmly talk to each other. And so – I still think so today – that wait wasn’t a waste of time. I remember that Ingarden devoted one hour of a lecture to Marx and Marxism. Literally one. Since he believed that hungry people need bread, not philosophy. He taught that certain conditions must be met to deal with philosophy. To have them, he was not politically involved. Professor Dąmbska tried not to see what was happening behind the windows of her room or lecture hall. In matters of moral and national nature, she was – as I said – unambiguous and without doubts. Did Ingarden had a great authority among the participants of the seminar? He had an authority, and assuring that it was big, would, in a way, be like taking some of it away. This authority was confirmed each time by what the Professor did and how. Ingarden’s classes were attended by assistant lecturers, although professors of other specialties would also come sometimes. Back then Andrzej Półtawski was the Professor’s assistant lecturer, and Władysław Stróżewski – Professor Dąmbska’s. There was also Maria Gołaszewska, who was involved in aesthetics and Janina Makota, who had previously graduated from English philology. The well-liked Gierulanka, whom I mentioned earlier, was not only about philosophy. She was also a psychologist and a mathematician. I had classes in psychology with her. I remember Michał Hempoliński, who dealt with the theory of cognition, from the Polish Philosophical Society’s seminars and meet­ings. Next to Janek Szewczyk and Fr. Józef Tischner, he was one of the most active participants of the meetings. It was always the case that at the meetings of the Krakow Branch of the Polish Philosophical Society, chaired by Professor Ingarden, there were pro­fessors of other specialties: Stefan Szuman – psychologist, the always active Franciszek Studnicki – lawyer, Lech Kalinowski – art historian, silent Antoni Kępiński – psychiatrist. Krzysztof Zanussi would go. If a speaker from outside our community appeared at a PPS meeting, I remember such a meeting with Kołakowski well, then the Professor would first clarify the meanings of particular words and phrasings (with the approval of the speaker), and only then proceeded to the discussion. A truly free, educating and creative dispute took place at such meetings. Even when – as it seemed – the person who spoke “talked nonsense”, the Professor knew how to make sense of it and get to an answer. For those outside our com­munity, such situations may have seemed incomprehensible. Was Professor Ingarden demanding of students? I have already said that the classes were always conducted at a high level. Regard­ing the requirements, the general opinion was that the Professor was very gentle. Maybe he was, but I remember an exam at his home well, where the student who was taking it before me failed right in front of my eyes. The dog was barking at him and when the student left, the Professor remarked that even the dog knew that he didn’t know anything. It didn’t bark at me and maybe that’s why I passed it very well. The Professor also said that he had quickly realized that the student was not prepared, but he continued the conversation that I had witnessed so that the other party could notice it. With time, when I conducted classes myself, I’d try to do the same. I recall how during one of the seminars I was called on to answer the ques­tion, when my thoughts and imagination were beyond the ongoing discussion. I had to admit that I didn’t know what was going on. The forgiving Professor left me alone. I have already said that students from other years and assistant lecturers took part in the seminars. Półtawski had great merits there, as, laden with dictionaries, he made sure that there weren’t any mistakes when we were reading and analyzing texts translated and transcribed on the machine. There were no duplicators. You could have five pages of typescript at one time. Półtawski was also the one to make sure that the Professor’s classes were recorded. Hence a large tape recorder which he’d bring with him to class. We could always count on the help of Ms. Janina Szarek – the librarian in organi­zational matters and information related to texts. The rule was that everyone should know the text analyzed in class beforehand and, in addition, have the text in front of them. There were no school tests or questioning. But it could also happen that a question was asked, after which silence befell the room. Years later, when I was teaching, I knew what to do. I’d ask the question, wait, and then answer it myself and calmly continue with the class. Do you remember if Ingarden was encouraging his students to conduct partner discussions? It seems to me that discussions in the Professor’s classes were always between part­ners, only you had to take part in them. Meanwhile, most of us did not take the floor. The presence of younger researchers and professors from other specialties could be intimidating. They were most often the ones to lead the dispute. We young people – were learning how to listen and understand. I can’t remember any informal meetings and discussions. Which doesn’t mean there weren’t any. Roman Ingarden’s Students Students of Prof. Roman Ingarden MA classes in 1946-501 Adamiakowska Barbara Bębenek Bronisław, pr. Bisztyga Adam Burnatowicz M. Dyląg Stefan Geisler? Giedymin Jerzy Gierulanka Danuta Gołaszewska Maria Goetel Maria Hadam Maria Kędzior Aleksander Korczak Janusz Królówna Maria Kubicki Tadeusz Kuśmierczyk Jan Madurowicz Helena Makota Janina Nawieśniak Alfred Nekwapil Jerzy Orchel Irena Piotrowska Regina Popiel Jan, pr. Popowicz Jadwiga Półtawski Andrzej Różewicz Tadeusz Sajdakówna Jadwiga Sośniak Mieczysław Spirało Antonina Średzińska Irena Suwała Mieczysław, pr. Turowicz Maria Tymieniecka Anna Teresa Wójcik Krystyna Wyjzioł Karol, pr. 1 Individual persons studied under Ingarden in different years, although in the indi­cated time frame. The students of Prof. Roman Ingarden in 1957-632 Aleksandrowicz Jerzy Bednarski Jacek Cieplak-Sowa Ewa Cichoń Władysław Chrzęściewski Lucjan Chrobak Stanisław Czarnota Kazimierz Dopieralska-Waszczenko Krystyna Dubiński Antoni Gołembski Franciszek Hertrich-Woleński Jan Hobgarski Wojciech Jaremowicz Janusz Jaremowicz Waldemar Jasińska Teresa Jaworski Wit Jaworowski Janusz Jezioro Jan Kajzar Helmut Komorowski Adam Kontkowski Jerzy Korsak-Sabuda Iwa Kowal Andrzej Kowalski Zdzisław Kulczycki Jerzy Leśniak Tadeusz Lipiec Józef Makota Janina Mierzwicka Kowalska Maria Klara Moliński Bogdan Mucha Ryszard Olszewski Jerzy Pacławski Jan Pankros Stefan Pawlica Jan Pawlik Ludwik Perzanowski Jerzy 2 The indicated period regards Ingarden’s work; certain students finished their studies after he had already retired. Podraza Grażyna Poświatowska Helena Półtawski Andrzej Resz Stanisław Sarna Jan W. Schock Edward Stamirowska-Sokołowska Krystyna Stanny Bogdan Szewczyk Jan Szymańska-Aleksandrowicz Beata Tischner Józef Turowicz-Piasecka Joanna Vetulani Jan Waligóra Henryk Józef Waszczenko Piotr Węgrzecki Adam Wieczorek Krzysztof Wroński Andrzej Załuska Jolanta Zanussi Krzysztof Zgoda Leopold Ziejka Franciszek (guest student) The students also included: Dąmbska Izydora Gierulanka Danuta Stróżewski Władysław Photographs 1911, Roman Witold Ingarden, student book, University of Lviv “…Ingarden was a master, but Dąmbska was the one who brought us up…” 1911, Roman Witold Ingarden, student book, University of Göttingen 1911, Roman Witold Ingarden, student book, University of Göttingen Leopold Zgoda Roman Ingarden, membership card of PAN [Polish Academy of Sciences] Roman Ingarden, faculty card of Jagiellonian University “…Ingarden was a master, but Dąmbska was the one who brought us up…” Trip to Mrs Wojciechowska in Czchów Roman Ingarden with his family next to Skoda Spartak Roman Ingarden “…Ingarden was a master, but Dąmbska was the one who brought us up…” Dżok, Planty garden aromas phenomenology dog Jan Leszczyński and Roman Ingarden 30th anniversary of death of Ingarden's “…Ingarden was a master, but Dąmbska was the one who brought us up…” Doctoral ceremony of Fr Józef Tischner, May 24, 1963 Doctoral ceremony of Andrzej Półtawski Andrzej Półtawski “…Ingarden was a master, but Dąmbska was the one who brought us up…” Józef Lipiec Jan Woleński “…Ingarden was a master, but Dąmbska was the one who brought us up…” Jan Woleński on a training ground during his military service Jan Szewczyk Ewa Sowa and Jan Szewczyk, Zawoja (spring, 1969) “…Ingarden was a master, but Dąmbska was the one who brought us up…” Ewa Sowa Anna Teresa Tymieniecka “…Ingarden was a master, but Dąmbska was the one who brought us up…” Maria Turowicz Maria Gołaszewska “…Ingarden was a master, but Dąmbska was the one who brought us up…” Halina Poświatowska (1966) “…Ingarden was a master, but Dąmbska was the one who brought us up…” Index A Ajdukiewicz Kazimierz 21-22, 24, 83, 89, 102, 201, 204, 209, 264, 266, 287, 324, 329, 333, 335, 339-342, 346 Aleksandrowicz Jerzy 13, 98, 140-142, 182, 203, 311, 330, 373 Aleksandrowicz Julian 136, 317, 373 Andrzejewski Tadeusz 177 Arendt, professor 135-136 Aristotle 76, 89, 197, 208, 227, 242, 259, 285, 312, 347, 373 Arndt Walter 225 Augustynek Zdzisław 41, 187, 205, 249, 297, 331, 340, 344, 377 Avé-Lallemant Eberhard 67, 111 B Bach Johann Sebastian 293 Baczko Bronisław 89, 266 Barcik Joanna 249 Bartoszyński Kazimierz 238 Barycz Henryk 33, 34, 40 Bauman Zygmunt 364 Becker Oscar 24, 340, 343 Bednarski Jacek 203, 205, 312 Beethoven Ludwig van 294 Bergman Ingmar 201 Bergson Henri 146, 208, 316 Berkeley George 302 Bernacki Włodzimierz 34 Bębenek, student 171 Biegański Władysław 184 Biel Józef 42 Biernacki Edmund 184 Bierut Bolesław 36, 79 Bieś Andrzej Paweł 39, 58 Bigo Tadeusz 77 Biran Maine de 160-161 Birkenmajer Aleksander 292 Blaustein Leopold 74 Bloom Allan 105, 109 Błachowski Stefan 67, 77-78 Bobko Aleksander 178 Bocheński Józef Maria 346-347 Bochnak Adam 47, 58 Bojarska Maria 69 Borowik Grażyna 178 Borucka-Arctowa Maria 321 Bourilly Jean 44Böhme Jakub 303 Breda Hermann van 24 Brentano Franz 227, 334 Brzezicki, professor 136 Brzozowski Stanisław 248, 264, 271-272, 274, 293 Bujak Renata 177 Burniewicz Józef 129 Buytendijk Frederik Jacobus Johannes 233 Bystroń Jan S. 83 C Calogero Guido 24 Camus Albert 373 Chałubiński Tytus 184 Chomsky Noam 146 Chopin Fryderyk 294 Chrzanowski Grzegorz 249 Chrząstek Adam 50-51 Chwistek Leon 74, 133 Cichoń Władysław 289, 373, 375 Cieszkowski August 264 Conrad-Martius Hedwig 24 Cornelius Hans 24 Czakon Dominika 13, 17, 26, 28 Czarnota Kazimierz 183, 191, 204, 330 Czerny Zygmunt 162 Czeżowski Tadeusz 23-24, 44, 83, 209, 280, 329, 337 Czuma Mieczysław 304 D Dalai Lama XIV 303 Danecka Krystyna, see Szopowa Krystyna de domo Danecka Davis Miles 129 Dąbrowski Jan 47 Dąmbska Izydora 21, 23, 26, 40-41, 48, 83, 85, 93, 106, 108, 123­124, 133, 139, 148, 165, 169, 181,184, 186-187, 189, 191-193, 201, 205, 213-214, 235, 240, 242, 255, 257-261, 263, 267-268, 273, 279, 287-288, 312-314, 321, 324, 331-332, 334, 337-339, 345-346, 362, 373-374, 376-382 Dembowski Edward 264 Descartes René 169, 208, 227, 236, 281, 288-289 Dłuska Maria 247, 255-256 Dobrowolska Krystyna 183 Dobrowolski Kazimierz 80 Domański Juliusz 291-292 Domínguez Pablo 326 Dudek D. 142 Dudek-Piątek Zdzisława 172, 205 Dufrenne Mikel 170, 215, 224 Duns Scotus 296 Dybiec Julian 33, 35, 58 Dziubas, carpenter 133 E Eckstein Marcin 177 Ehrlich Ludwik 35 Einstein Albert 209 Elzenberg Henryk 21, 83, 337 Engels Friedrich 38, 274, 333, 365 Eriugena John Scotus 298 Estreicher Karol 35, 47 Ey Henri 232 F Faber Wincenty 304 Fischer Bobby 205 Fitowa Alina 34, 43, 45, 58 Frazik Wojciech 38, 42, 58-59 G Gadamer Hans-Georg 24 Galeński Witold 245 Galewicz Włodzimierz 298 Gałecki Jerzy 203, 334 “…Ingarden was a master, but Dąmbska was the one who brought us up…” Gandhi Indira 303 Garbacz Czesław 44, 52, 54 Gawecki Bolesław Józef 79, 235 Gąsiorowski Stanisław 83 Gibski Jan 45, 49 Gierek Edward 268 Gierowski J. 142 Gierulanka Danuta 26, 41, 48, 85, 108, 120, 123, 163, 165-167, 169, 186-187, 190, 203, 205, 207, 240, 242-243, 245, 259-260, 264, 288­289, 296, 312-314, 331-332, 334, 336, 339, 366, 381-382 Gilson Étienne 215 Glanowska Zofia 42 Gliński Zygmunt 39 Goetel-Kopffowa (Goetlówna) Maria 163, 240, 243, 245 Gogh Vincent van 166 Gołaszewska Maria 13, 32, 37, 41, 48, 59, 82, 83, 88-89, 92-93, 95, 99, 109, 131, 154-155, 165, 203, 205, 240, 243, 263, 287, 291, 296, 298, 312-313, 331, 334, 382 Gołaszewski Tadeusz 48 Gołembski Franciszek 330 Gombrowicz Witold 95, 167 Gomułka Władysław 33, 41-42, 268 Gromska Daniela 21, 41, 106, 108,205, 259-260, 312-313, 331, 339, 362, 373, 381 Gropius Walter 129 Grzebień Ludwik 39, 59 H Hartman Jan 326 Hartmann Nicolai 216, 241 Hegel Georg Wilhelm Friedrich 203, 260, 281 Heidegger Martin 241, 316, 343, 347, 364 Heinrich Władysław 79, 226-227 Heller Michał 360-361 Hempoliński Michał 41, 90, 204-205, 331, 340, 344, 382 Herbert Zbigniew 95, 167, 376 Herostrates 89 Hilbert David 103 Hintikka Jaakko 348 Hitler Adolf 343 Hobgarski Wojciech 205-206 Holland Henryk 89 Hulewicz Jan 34 Hume David 227, 239, 265, 288 Husserl Edmund 19, 24, 26, 64, 103, 154-155, 170, 202, 208-210, 216, 223, 227, 232, 237, 239, 242, 261-262, 264, 266, 269, 272, 276, 281, 288-289, 316, 334-335, 338, 340, 343, 364, 380 Husserl Malvine 26 Hübner Piotr 32, 59, 91, 109 I Igel Salomon 74 Indraszczyk Arkadiusz 34 Ingarden Andrzej 12, 99, 115, 121,124, 133 Ingarden Ewa 124 Ingarden Janusz 43, 49, 129, 132-133, 136 Ingarden Krzysztof 12, 127 Ingarden Maria (Nuna) de domo Pol 72, 119-120, 124-125, 134-136 Ingarden Marta 129 Ingarden Roman Kajetan 86 Ingarden Roman Stanisław 36, 43,59, 66, 70-71, 73-74, 109, 119, 129, 137 Ingarden Roman Witold passim Irzykowski Kazimierz 24 Iwaszkiewicz Jarosław 24 J Jadczak Ryszard 32, 36, 59, 68-69, 109 Jakimowicz, professor 136 Jakubowski Wiktor 35, 48, 52 Jankélévitch Vladimir 249 Japa Józef 35, 52 Jaroszyński T.M. 89 Jaspers Karl 145-146 Jaworowski Janusz 373-374, 381 Jaworski Wit 263, 330 Jerusalem Wilhelm 241 Jezia Jan 205 Jędrys Ewa 175 Jędrzejewska Anna 74 John Paul II, pope 176, 184, 231, 233, 274, 280, 286, 295, 297, 332 Justin, saint 299 K Kaczorowska Barbara 178 Kafka Franz 208-209 Kairov Ivan 375 Kajzar Helmut 205 Kalinowski Jerzy 286 Kalinowski Lech 382 Kamieński Henryk 264 Kant Immanuel 91, 146, 169, 207-208, 233, 239, 242, 260, 288-289, 302, 316, 334 Karolak Wiesław 178 Karolczak Maria 178 Kasprzyk Leszek 377 Kaufmann Felix 24 Kenzo Tange 129 Kędziorek Bogdan 39, 85, 313 Kępiński Antoni 182, 184, 205, 376, 382-383 Klasa Katarzyna 143 Kleiner Juliusz 24, 83, 90, 160-162 Klemensiewicz Zenon 265 Klentak-Zabłocka Małgorzata 67, 111 Klimek Rudolf 33, 59 Klinger Jerzy 285-286 Kłoczowski Jerzy 184 Kochański Zdzisław 331 Kokoszyńska-Lutmanowa Maria 83 “…Ingarden was a master, but Dąmbska was the one who brought us up…” Kołakowski Leszek 89, 337, 341, 360, 377, 383 Kołodziejczyk Sebastian 298 Komaniecka-Łyp (Komaniecka) Monika 13, 31, 43, 59, 88, 96, 109 Kononowicz Tadeusz 101, 110 Konopczyński Władysław 83 Kontkowski Leszek 330 Kormanowa Żanna 87 Korolec Jerzy Bartłomiej 291 Korzeniowski Robert 177 Kościański Tadeusz 87 Kot Stanisław 33-34, 42, 45-46, 50-52, 54 Kotarbińska Janina 83 Kotarbiński Tadeusz 21, 24, 53, 83, 89, 102, 287, 323-324, 329,333, 335, 339, 341-342, 360, 374-375, 377, 379 Kowal Andrzej 13, 99, 104, 147, 176-177, 293, 330, 374 Kowalska Maria 205 Kowalski Zdzisław 205 Koyré Alexandre 24 Krajewski Waldemar 89 Krąpiec Mieczysław 280, 286, 296 Kroński Tadeusz 21, 88-89, 109-110, 344 Król Marcin 330 Krupek Herbert 184 Kubacki Wacław 35, 247, 255 Kubiak Sylwester 40 Kuchta Anna 306 Kuderowicz Zbigniew 205, 302, 331 Kuenga Guido 203 Kulczyński Stanisław Leon 76-77 Kuliniak Radosław 23, 28, 66, 110 Kwiecień Marcin 53, 60 L Labé Louise 306 Lacan Jacques 303 Lachert Bohdan 44 Lalo Charles 215 Lam Stanisław 46, 53 Landau Edmund 103 Landgrebe Ludwig 24 Langer Susanne 215 Laskownicki Stanisław 77 Le Corbusier 129-130 Legowicz Jan 205, 263, 280, 291 Lehr-Spławiński Tadeusz 79 Lejewski Czesław 347 Lenin Vladimir 38 Lepszy Kazimierz 80, 329-330 Leszczyna Dorota 28, 66, 110 Leszczyński Jan 89-90, 166, 187, 196, 202-205, 273, 309, 312-314, 331, 334, 377 Leśmian Bolesław 293 Leśniewski Stanisław 324 Levinas Emmanuel 249, 276 Lipiec Józef 89, 99-100, 103-104, 110, 196-198, 201, 263, 330, 333 Lissa Zofia 24 Locke John 267 Loria Stanisław 78 Löw Reinhard 233 Lutosławski Witold 24, 294, 297 Ł Ładosz Jarosław 265 Łagowski Bronisław 205, 334 Łopatka Zdzisław 87 Łubnicki Narcyz 286 Łukasiewicz Jan 18, 324 M Machcewicz Paweł 33, 60 Maeker Dominique 177 Majewska Zofia 32, 36-37, 39, 60, 92, 110 Majewski Zbigniew 41 Makota Janina 13, 41, 85, 90, 96, 100, 104, 148, 203, 213-216, 225, 240, 260, 263, 296, 313, 331-332, 334, 345, 382 Małecki Marian 53, 60 Mann Thomas 293, 339, 359 Mańkowski Tomasz 131 Markiewicz Barbara 305 Markiewicz Henryk 247, 254-255 Marx Karl 38, 88, 203, 264, 365, 382 Maykowska Maria 101, 110 Mensfeld Sylwia 177 Michalski Konstanty 79, 292 Michałowska Danuta 256 Michna Natalia Anna 13, 17, 26, 28 Michnik Adam 188 Mickiewicz Adam 238, 293, 364 Miklaszewska Justyna 32-33, 61, 110-111 Mikołajczyk Stanisław 33 Mikucki Sylwiusz 32, 48, 58, 60 Milik Tadeusz 257 Mizera Janusz 32-33, 61, 110-111 Młynarski Feliks 35 Moczulski Leszek A. 304 Mole Wojsław 49, 237 Moore George Edward 24, 232 Mrowiec Tadeusz 48 Mrożek Sławomir 95, 167 Mróz Piotr 219, 306 Munro Thomas 215 Musiał Filip 38-39, 42, 49, 53, 58-60 Müller Georg Elias 19, 103, 226-227 Münsterberg Hugo 216 Mysłakowski Zygmunt 80 N Nadolski Helmut 129 Nelson Leonard 101, 110 Neyer Maria Amata 67, 111 Nietzsche Friedrich 377 Norwid Cyprian Kamil 255, 293 “…Ingarden was a master, but Dąmbska was the one who brought us up…” Nowak Andrzej J. 11, 219 Nowicki Ryszard 89 O Opałek Kazimierz 321 Ossowska Maria 83, 287 Ossowski Stanisław 21, 83, 287 Ostachowski Emilian 35 P Paczkowska Elżbieta 205 Pałuba Maria 178 Pandura Mariusz 28, 66, 110 Parandowski Jan 24 Partum Andrzej 129 Partum Ewa 129 Pasenkiewicz Kazimierz 32, 41, 47, 60, 90, 187, 205, 258-259, 312-313, 321, 331, 334 Patočka Jan 24 Pawlica Jan 90, 204-205, 306,331, 340, 344 Penderecki Krzysztof 290, 294 Perzanowski Jerzy 36, 59, 75, 93, 99-100, 106-111, 183-184, 186-187, 190-191, 204, 258, 274, 285, 293, 312, 330-331, 335, 341, 345, 374-375 Petschowa Danuta 210 Pfänder Alexander 289 Piasecka Joanna de domo Turowicz 147, 203, 205, 255, 257, 270, 296-297, 330, 336, 373 Piasecki Marek 296 Piasecki, captain 345 Pieszczachowicz Jan 256 Pietruszczak Andrzej 107, 110 Pigoń Stanisław 35, 83, 310 Piotrowicz Ludwik 80 Piwarski Kazimierz 80 Plamitzer Antoni 133 Plato 101, 110, 189, 197-198, 208, 242, 259, 281 Plessner Helmuth 24 Płużkówna Zenomena 90 Pol Władysław 137 Popiel Jan 39, 48, 136, 289 Poświatowska Halina 90, 182, 204-205, 275, 296-297, 317, 330, 373, 377, 381 Potocka Maria Anna 25 Półtawska Wanda 163, 168, 361 Półtawski Andrzej 41, 85, 89-90, 100, 148, 163, 170, 186-188, 203, 206-207, 214, 232-233, 256-257, 259-260, 263, 269, 287-288, 291, 312-313, 331-332, 334, 336, 339, 345, 361, 382-383 R Rapacki Adam 98 Ratajczak Łukasz 28 Reinach Adolf 19, 103, 341 Rembrandt 294 Rey Kazimierz 177 Rilke Rainer Maria 71, 225, 293, 299 Robakowski Józef 129 Romek Zbigniew 54, 60 Rozin Jolanta 256 Rudecka Aleksandra 381 Rutkowski Tadeusz P. 33-34, 60 Rybicki Paweł 313, 375, 382 S Sabuda Iwa 147 Sahn Seung 303 Salmonowicz Stanisław 53, 60 Sałacińska Mirosława 330 Sarna Jan 205, 330 Sartre Jean-Paul 154, 167, 258 Schaff Adam 89, 91, 110, 219, 311, 364 Scheler Max 208, 216 Schopenhauer Artur 302 Sedlak Włodzimierz 44 Seńko Władysław 291-292 Shakespeare William 255 Siemek Marek 330 Sienkiewicz Henryk 71 Skamiński Jan 286 Skąpski Zbigniew 35 Skoczyński Jan 326 Skolimowski Henryk 24 Skowron Stanisław 80 Skrzeszewski Stanisław 38 Skwarczyńska Stefania 83 Słoniewska Halina 74 Słowacki Juliusz 44, 293, 364 Smoluchowski Marian 209 Sobański Jerzy A. 143 Sobeski Michał 78 Socrates 101 Solzhenitsyn Aleksandr 269 Sosnowski Leszek 10-11, 17, 26, 28, 298, 305-306 Souriau Étienne 215 Sowa Barbara 247 Sowa Ewa 90, 95, 100-102, 205, 247-248, 254, 296, 312, 330-331 Sowa Katarzyna 247 Sowa Ryszard 247, 256 Spaemann Robert 233 Spinoza Baruch 341 Sprusiński Michał 256 Staff Leopold 71 Stalin Joseph 31, 164, 169 Stamirowska Krystyna 257, 330 Stanisz Piotr 177 Stein Edyta 24, 67, 111, 164, 216, 227, 295, 363 Stelmach Jerzy 35, 60 Stępień Antoni 287 Stobiecki Rafał 32, 60 Stolarska Dorota 143 Stołyhwa Kazimierz 75 Straus Erwin 232 Stróżewski Władysław 23, 32, 41, 61, 84, 96-97, 106-107, 110, 148, 186-187, 203, 205, 243, 249, 257, 260, 263, 273, 280-281, 311-313, 331-332, 334, 336, 339, 362, 379, 382 Strzemiński Władysław 129 Studnicka, guest house owner 135 “…Ingarden was a master, but Dąmbska was the one who brought us up…” Studnicki Franciszek 257, 382 Suchorzewska Janina 83 Surma Stanisław 41, 205, 331 Susułowska (Einhorn-Susułowska) Maria 376 Suszko Roman 337 Suzuki Daistez Teitaro 306 Swedenborg Emanuel 303 Szafarkiewicz Maryla 296 Szafer Władysław 76 Szarek Janina 14, 254-255, 383 Szczepańska Anita 90, 290 Szczepański Artur 290 Szczucka Anna 75, 111 Szewczuk Włodzimierz 373 Szewczyk Jan 85, 90, 98-99, 147, 151, 165, 188-189, 203, 205, 214, 263-269, 271-272, 274, 276-277, 289, 311, 315, 330, 332, 334, 336, 344, 374, 376-377, 382 Szopowa Krystyna de domo Danecka 90, 240, 245 Szpytma Mateusz 59 Szuman Stefan 24, 79, 90, 133, 205, 243, 382 Szymanowski Karol 294 Szymańska (Szymańska-Aleksandrowicz) Beata 104, 145, 147-148, 182, 205, 296-297, 303-304, 306, 330, 373 Ś Śpiewak Anna 306 Średzińska Irena 89-90, 166, 240, 245 Światło Józef 37-38 Świecimski Jerzy 90, 290 Świeżawski Stefan 100, 235, 280, 286-289, 291 T Taranczewski Paweł 244, 294 Taranczewski Wacław 294 Tarnowska Anna 65 Tarnowski Karol 362, 366 Tarski Alfred 348 Tatarkiewicz Teresa 79, 111 Tatarkiewicz Władysław 21, 24, 53, 79, 83, 88, 92, 100, 111, 135, 163, 166, 201, 209, 215, 235, 239-240, 258-259, 333, 360 Teresa Benedykta od Krzyża, see Stein Edyta Terlecki Ryszard 31, 35, 37, 41, 47, 61 Tetelowska Irena 265 Tischner Józef 90, 98, 123-124, 147, 151, 167, 182, 184, 188, 192, 204-205, 264-269, 271-274, 276, 289, 311, 315, 330, 332, 362, 374, 382 Thomas Aquinas 242, 281, 286, 296, 247, 361 Topór Stanisław 45-46 Tsvetaeva Marina 306 Turowicz Jerzy 373 Turowicz Joanna, see Piasecka Joanna de domo Turowicz Turowicz Maria 163, 245 Twardowski Kazimierz 18-19, 22-23, 44, 64, 66-69, 74, 89, 209, 223, 257, 259, 324, 335, 340-342, 373, 375 Tyburski Włodzimierz 44, 61 Tymieniecka Anna Teresa 203, 240, 347-348 U Uruszczak Wacław 35, 60 V Vetulani Adam 34, 205 Vetulani Jan 203, 205, 256-257, 330 Vetulani Jerzy 205 W Wajs Andrzej 67, 111 Walicki Andrzej 249 Waligóra Henryk 330 Walther Gerda 24 Waluszkiewicz Karol 40 Wałęga Władysław 177, 185 Warpechowski Zbigniew 129 Warren Austin 224 Wartenberg Mścisław 18, 64, 70 Waszczenko Piotr 99, 101, 110, 183, 190-191, 204, 293, 330, 373 Weintraub Wiktor 43 Wellek René 224 Wenklar Michał 38, 58-59 Wereszycki Henryk 35 Wędkiewicz Stanisław 43, 46 Węgrzecka Maria 376 Węgrzecki Adam 13, 90, 108, 111, 203, 205, 243, 249, 288-289, 293, 311, 330, 373, 375-377, 379-381 Whitehead Alfred North 347 Wiatr Jerzy 314 Wiktor Jan 35 Wilczek Franciszka 295-296 Wilkanowicz Stefan 287 Wilkoszewska Krystyna 37, 61 Windelband Wilhelm 220 Wiśniewski Ryszard 44, 61 Witkiewicz Stanisław Ignacy (Witkacy) 24, 122, 129, 133-134, 137, 311, 313, 331 Witwicki Władysław 24 Włodek Zofia 291 Wnorowska Wanda 35 Wodiczko Krzysztof 129 Wojciechowska Wanda 90, 166, 244 Wojciechowski, engineer 244 Wojtyła Karol, see John Paul II Woleński (Hertrich-Woleński) Jan 79, 95-96, 98, 102-104, 111, 147, 203, 239, 256, 258, 274, 312, 323-325, 380 Wolff Christian 347 Wolna Irena 90 Wolnicka Elżbieta 296 Wójcik Anna Iwona 305-306 Wójcik Krystyna 90 Wroński Andrzej 106, 111, 203, 205, 256, 258-259, 311, 330, 373, 375, 380-381 “…Ingarden was a master, but Dąmbska was the one who brought us up…” Wyka Kazimierz 24, 309-310, 333 Wyspiański Stanisław 71 Wyszyński Stefan 266 Z Zagajewski Adam 81, 107, 111, 182, 263 Zając Leszek 177 Zakrzewska Jadwiga 35 Zalewska Anna 306 Załuska Jolanta 257, 330 Zanussi Krzysztof 182, 205, 244, 330,351-352, 383 Zarębski Ignacy 34 Zathey Jerzy 34 Zawirski Zygmunt 36, 75, 79-80, 89, 235 Zdrójkowski Zbigniew 70 Zechenter Anna 83, 98, 111 Zgoda Leopold 96-98, 100, 105-106, 111, 203, 205, 312, 330, 379 Ziejka Franciszek 256 Zimand Roman 249 Znamierowski Czesław 337 Ż Żarnecka Zofia 90, 240 Żarnecka-Biały Ewa 205, 253, 313, 331, 334 Żarnecki Stanisław 253 Żeromski Stefan 71 Żółkiewski Stefan Jakub 52, 84 Życiński Józef 361 This book is the important element of the celebration of the 50th anniversary of Roman Ingarden’s death in 2020. This half-century includes the earlier anniversa ries of births and deaths, marked by occasional conferences and book publications. Perhaps the time has come to approach Ingarden in a different way, not through the many complex elements of his system, but through the features of his intellectual and emotional image that emerges from the memories of those around him. Maybe by reviving the very figure of this eminent Polish humanist, his philosophy will also once again come to live. The philosopher is depicted here through the recollections of his students who participated in his academic activities in the years 1957-1963. This is his second return to didactics in the post-war period, separated by a forced leave and a ban on teaching; the first period being the years 1945-1950. The introduction is not, however, the place to discuss the image of Ingarden emerging from the minds of his students. The reader can find this in further parts of the book including the memories of par ticular individuals. It is worth to noting, however, that the details of this image are carried by Ingarden’s students both in their minds and in their hearts. The period of their studies was an important, intellectually and emotionally formative time. It is difficult to distinguish between these spheres of personality subjected to the influence of the great teacher and academic Ingarden was. The book consists of two distinct parts. The first is introducing chapters, ranged ac cording to an age and the level of saturation with Ingarden’s ideology. The first chapter in this section – authored by Dominika Czakon and Natalia Anna Michna – is a more personal reflection on Ingarden from the point of view of the youngest generation of philosophers. For whom his thought is from a different time and comes to life only occasionally. Next, an article by Monika Komaniecka-Łyp presents the history of Ingarden when he was under surveillance by the Security Service of the Polish People’s Republic, resulting from the operations aimed against the academic community of the Jagiellonian University. The last text in this section – authored by the editor – is of a biographical nature, where Ingarden is presented as a secondary school teacher and academic mentor. The second part of the book is a unique collection of memories of Ingarden’s two grandchildren, students, friends and associates.