Home » Posts tagged 'T. Mróz'
Tag Archives: T. Mróz
Talks on W. Tatarkiewicz’s Lectures on Greek Philosophy
A series of conferences called Seminars of Historians of Polish Philosophy continues and develops. The latest edition (the 13th) was organised in Toruń by the Institute of Philosophy of the Nicolaus Copernicus University on May 28th-30th, 2026. The title of the meeting was Polish Historiography of Philosophy. Methods – Problems – Representatives. The members of Ancient Φilosophy Reception research group were obviously present there. It should be only briefly mentioned here that the 12th edition of the Seminar took place in May 2025 in Zielona Góra, and the initiative came from AΦR.
Those were Tomasz Mróz and Adrian Habura who represented Institute of Philosophy (UZ). Both their papers were presented in the panel New Sources for the History of Polish Philosophy, and both were focused on various aspects of the same archival material. This material cosisted of excerpts, reports and notes taken by Bohdan Zawadzki (1902-1966, photo on the right) from lectures delivered in Warsaw in the early 20’s of the 20th century by Władysław Tatarkiewicz (1886-1980). They remained unknown before Habura’s short research visit in Vilnius.
The paper by T. Mróz was titled Bohdan Zawadzki’s reports from Władysław Tatarkiewicz’s lectures on Greek philosophy. Mróz made a general presentation of Zawadzki as a student of Władysław Witwicki (1878-1948) in Warsaw and a professor in Vilnius, and his relations to Tatarkiewicz. Then he focused on the manuscript materials and the representation of Plato in them. His conclusion was that even a preliminary analysis of Zawadzki’s notes, especially in parts devoted to Plato, demonstrates that Tatarkiewicz as a lecturer of Greek philosophy was still influenced by his studies in Marburg and he had provided his students with much richer material than he later included in volume I of his History of Philosophy.
A. Habura, in his paper titled Two images of Aristotle in Władysław Tatarkiewicz’s works in the light of Bohdan Zawadzki’s notes, examined a more detailed issue related to Zawadzki’s manuscripts. A starting point of his paper was a distinction between the two “images” of Aristotle that Tatarkiewicz developed before the WWII. The first was the result of his doctoral studies in Marburg (1910), while the second was included in his History of Philosophy (1931). An analysis of these two “images” leads to the conclusion that, although they are formally different, they do not differ so much in the content. Zawadzki’s manuscripts from Tatarkiewicz’s lectures are valuable in this case, because they allow to demonstrate that in the 1920s, while writing his History of Philosophy, Tatarkiewicz’s studies on Aristotle were more developed than they appeared until now.
Participation of both scholars in the Seminar was sponsored from the funds of “Small Grant” (UZ).
A Conference in Częstochowa: Polish Studies on Plato
Ancient Φilosophy Reception research group couldn’t have been absent at the conference on Polish Studies on Plato, which was held in Jan Długosz University (UJD) in Częstochowa on May 18-19th, 2026.
The conference was organised by the Chair of Philosophy of UJD, and prof. Wiesława Sajdek was the head of the whole event. Tomasz Mróz delivered his paper in the opening panel, after the introductory talk by prof. Marian Wesoły. Reports from the first day of the conference (in Polish) were published on the websites of UJD and a local radio station. It should be emphasised that both professors, Sajdek and Wesoły, have already collaborated in various activities of AΦR.
The paper by Mróz had a long title: Why study the history of studies on Plato? (and a couple of interesting pieces that were not included in the books). He argued, certainly, for the positive answer to the question in the title, since – for example – discussions about Plato’s legacy and various interpretations of his philosophy reflect philosophical trends of their times and commenting on Plato’s dialogues provides a convenient opportunity to express one’s own views. Moreover, Mróz discussed peculiar history of the texts that had “Plato” and “Poland” in their titles, starting with an English report, published by Lewis Campbell (1830-1908), Plato in Poland (1893), on the then recent studies on Plato’s logic by Wincenty Lutosławski (1863-1954). Then, the history of Polish texts by Irena Pannenkowa (1879-1969), Izydora Dąmbska (1904-1983), Zbigniew Nerczuk (another collaborator of AΦR), and Mróz himself followed.
Mróz discussed briefly some issues related to his decades long studies on Polish traditions in researching and translating Plato that were unsuitable for publishing in scholarly works. They were e.g. his reminiscences from his meetings with Lutosławski’s daughter, Janina Lutosławska (1922-2006), and the archival discoveries he had made in the legacies of Lutosławski, Stefan Pawlicki (1839-1916), Stanisław Lisiecki (1872-1960), and Henryk Jakubanis (1879-1949), many of which he was able to edit and publish.
In the final parts of his talk, Mróz presented a small detail related to the location of the conference, the city of Częstochowa. Once in his research he came across a copy of the Phaedo in Władysław Witwicki’s (1878-1948) translation (Warsaw 1925) which had been owned by Jan Sołdrowski (1889-1970), a teacher of various subjects (including classics) and a Catholic activist from Częstochowa. His notes on the margins of the book revealed his thoughts and impressions from reading the dialogue.
Erasmus+ Teaching Visits in Vilnius Continue
In May, 11th-15th, 2026, Tomasz Mróz enjoyed his fifth Erasmus+ teaching visit in Faculty of Philosophy, Vilnius University.
One of the lectures was focused on discussing various problems related to historiography of philosophy, using the method and structure of the History of Philosophy by Władysław Tatarkiewicz (1886-1980), especially in regard to ancient philosophers. An additional material for discussion was provided by the Lithuanian edition of this three-volume book (2001) with covers – contrary to Polish editions – decorated with various images. The front cover of vol. I, for example, depicts Boethius – what students were able to discover with only little help! – in his consoling dialogue with Philosophy herself, and the wheel of Fortune, an important argument for a philosophers not to let a hard lot get them down.
Another lecture related to the history of ancient philosophy scholarship was devoted to Wincenty Lutosławski (1863-1954), a renowned researcher of Plato, and the Vilnius period of his academic career. A decade spent in Vilnius was by Lutosławski considered a disappointment with his colleague professors and low number of students. He was able, however, to promote a successful Ph.D. student interested in Plato, Benedykt Woyczyński (1895-1927), initiate correspondence with notable persons, not only philosophers, and – last, but not least – work on his idea of a historical development of metaphysics, which was his focus until his ultimate years.
This lecture was an open event and it was advertised here.
The Third Small Grant from the University of Zielona Góra
Prof. Justyna Patalas-Maliszewska, the Deputy Rector for Science and International Cooperation of the University of Zielona Góra, home institution of the AΦR, awarded Tomasz Mróz and Adrian Habura with a “Small Grant” (17th edition). These internal grants are distributed by the Rector annually among those researchers of UZ, who have submitted their proposals to the National Science Centre (NCN), received positive assessements from the experts, yet finally have not been granted funding.
The aim of the “Small Grant” for AΦR is to conduct preliminary research on extensive notes taken by Bohdan Zawadzki (1902-1966), later professor of psychology, during the lectures of Władysław Tatarkiewicz (1886-1980) on the philosophy of the Greeks, which were held at the University of Warsaw in the early twenties of the 20th century. Zawadzki’s manuscript is kept in one of the libraries in Vilnius.
The proposal received highest possible notes and funding will be spent on archival research and attending a conference.
The Second Doctoral Degree by a Member of AΦR Team
On April 14th, 2026, a public defense of Adrian Habura’s doctoral thesis took place in the Institute of Philosophy, University of Zielona Góra (UZ). The title of his dissertation was Aristotle as a Research Material and Source of Inspirations of Władysław Tatarkiewicz (1886-1980). The whole event was chaired by prof. Justyna Kroczak. At the start of the curriculum, the candidate was presented by the supervisor, Prof. Tomasz Mróz, who gave an overview of the candidate’s research and teaching experience, emphasised Habura’s work in a previous research project on S. Lisiecki, and his successful collaboration with prof. Jonas Čiurlionis of Vilnius University, an auxiliary supervisor of the dissertation.
Habura then took the floor and presented the main points of his thesis. His dissertation aimed to answer two questions: 1) how did Tatarkiewicz interpret Aristotle’s philosophy? And 2) how did Aristotle inspire him in his original philosophical reflections? Habura applied Juliusz Domański’s distinction between the researchers and the users of ancient heritage, which helped him to define clearly the conditions of reception process. According to Domański, reception must be preceded by acknowledging and positive evaluation of the subject of study. Habura argued that Tatarkiewicz had met both of these conditions.
To answer the questions of the thesis, Habura focused on chronology of Tatarkiewicz’s life and work and on philosophical problems related to the reception of Aristotle, and applied biographical and comparative methods. His analyses demonstrated that Tatarkiewicz, during his long and fruitful life, developed several interpretations of Aristotle. Therefore, Habura examined relations between these interpretations.
Tatarkiewicz himself stated that during his life, he had developed two “images”, two interpretations of Aristotle, and spoke about him in two different ways. However, as Habura argued, they were not contradictory, but rather complementary. Regarding Aristotle’s research methods, philosophical approach, and philosophical ideas, Tatarkiewicz did not change his position in his later works; he broadened his analyses to include various aspects of Aristotle’s philosophy (from metaphysics to aesthetics). For this reason, Habura concluded that it was fully justified to treat Tatarkiewicz’s interpretations as parts of one coherent image of Aristotle.
From Tatarkiewicz’s earliest works on Aristotle to his final writings, he consistently regarded the Stagirite’s philosophy as pluralistic and teleological. As comparative analyses demonstrated, Tatarkiewicz’s own philosophical thinking could be attributed with these two adjectives as well, because they describe accurately his position in epistemology, methodology, ethics, and aesthetics.
The dissertation was assessed by three reviewers, they were prof. Marian Wesoły (The Jacob of Paradies Academy in Gorzów Wielkopolski / Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań ), prof. Przemysław Paczkowski (University of Rzeszów), and prof. Ryszard Wiśniewski (Jan Długosz University in Częstochowa / Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń). It should be remarked that prof. Wiśniewski, in 1976, was himself an author of a doctoral dissertation on Tatarkiewicz. All the reviewers arrived in Zielona Góra to present their positive assessments of the dissertation and ask a couple of questions. They were concerned with a very detailed character of Habura’s account of Tatarkiewicz’s career. Removing some minor parts could have given, as a result, a thinner volume and clearer argument. The discussion, that followed, focused on originality of Tatarkiewicz’s philosophy, on the attempt to position him against the 20th century interpreters of Aristotle, and on a lacking chapter on Tatarkiewicz in Enrico Berti’s book Aristotele nel Novecento (1992), that could have been written, had Berti known the works of the Polish author. Moreover, prof. Wiśniewski, who knew Tatarkiewicz personally, shared some memories of the philosopher with the audience.
Finally, after hearing the reviews, questions and answers, the commission decided to award A. Habura with a doctoral degree cum laude. His dissertation, no doubt, has broadened the knowledge of the Polish reception of Aristotle and of Tatarkiewicz himself.
Dear Doctor Habura!
Good luck with your research plans!
A Note on “Plato in Poland” in “The Polish Review”
It has been only recently that we have learned about a note on Tomasz Mróz’s book (Plato in Poland 1800-1950: Types of Reception – Authors – Problems, Baden-Baden 2021) that appeared in “The Polish Review” (New York) in 2022 (vol. 67, no. 4, p. 176) in the section: Books Briefly.
A paragraph long note by the journal editors assessed the book as “a valuable addition to the history of Polish philosophy”.
How to Scare International Students with Vitello’s Theory of Demons
In March (23rd-27th) 2026, an Erasmus+ Blended Intensive Programme meeting was held at the University of Zielona Góra. About fifty students representing partner universities from Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania, Turkey and Vietnam took part in this event. Ancient Φilosophy Reception research group was present there and it was Tomasz Mróz whose presentation inaugurated on-site and offline part of the whole event.
The general topic of this BIP meeting was: Interference Patterns – Science and Culture in Dialogue. Mróz’s lecture – The Philosopher Vitello of Legnica and His Scholarly Theory of Demons – aimed to demonstrate how this 13th century scientist and philosopher, man of the world and a locally engaged scholar, used ancient thinkers (Calcidius and Aristotle) and combined mathematical calculations, natural sciences, philosophy and his own life experience to develop a theory of demons as animals composed mainly of air, the subtle element. He rejected theological concept of demons as a fallen angels and took an attempt to explain various “demonic” phaenomena secundum viam naturalem et possibilem.
The questions from the audience concerned the problem of Vitello’s method as he departed from theological discourse. The discussion that followed emphasised the convergence of methods of Latin Averroists and Vitello, whose intention may have also been the defence of the autonomous character of philosophy and sciences. Feedback from students was also invaluable as they were surprised that such intriguing topics can be found in (otherwise dull?) history of medieval philosophy. Thank you Moldovan students in Romania!
As a digression in the course of the lecture, Woody Allen’s Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex* (*But Were Afraid to Ask appeared. However, since the episode with Daisy, the sheep, is definitely not suitable for all audiences, it will not be developed here 😉
Of course, no one would probably argue today for topicality of Vitello’s theory of demons, but at least some of his considerations should be taken as a serious piece of advice even in the 21st century: if you see demons or angels or hear them talking to you or making sounds, you should immediately consult a doctor!
Thanks to Sylwia Kondej and Magdalena Pokrzyńska
for organising such a great event!
Recent commentaries