![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.aphr.ifil.uz.zgora.pl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/TUni.jpg\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nT. Mr\u00f3z’s paper was prepared in co-operation with Pawe\u0142 Polak (The Pontifical University of John Paul II in Krak\u00f3w), who presented his part in an on-line form. The title of their presentation was The Early Reception of Russell\u2019s Philosophy among Polish Philosophers \u2013 a Diversity of Perspectives<\/em>. P. Polak focused in particular on reception of Russell’s ideas among the representatives of the Lvov-Warsaw School, while T. Mr\u00f3z discussed two cases of reception of Russell’s History of Western Philosophy<\/em> (1945) among Polish historians of philosophy, and some other issues, e.g. the censorship of Russell’s texts in Poland.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What matters here is ancient philosophy. The first Polish critic of Russell’s History <\/em>was Wincenty Lutos\u0142awski (1863-1954), who expressed his views on Russell’s Plato in a letter (Lutos\u0142awski’s draft on the left) to the author (a paper in “Russell” on the letters between the two philosophers has been announced here<\/a>). Despite the differences between them, Lutos\u0142awski declared in his letter: “Your History<\/em> proves that we agree in our esteem of Plato”. Moreover, he praised Russell, “In your six chapters on him [=Plato] I did not discover a single error and I agree with everything you say”. In fact, both authors set themselves different goals in discussing Plato and this resulted in disparate methods in their presentations of Platonism, yet Lutos\u0142awski’s opinion was so important for Russell that he passed it immediately to his publisher.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n Marian Heitzman (1899-1964) was not a philosopher of a similar recognition to Lutos\u0142awski, he was an expert in Renaissance philosophy and in F. Bacon. His views on Russell’s History were published as an extensive review study in the oldest Polish philosophical journal \u201ePhilosophical Review\u201d [Przegl\u0105d Filozoficzny]. His general opinion on Russell’s book was the following: “it is worth to read the book and it is worth to have it on a bookshelf, but it cannot be recommended as a handbook or a synthetic study of the history of philosophy”. He appreciated Russell\u2019s style and his \u201ehumour coloured by a bit of Volterian scepticism”. His focus was Renaissance philosophy, but he remarked on many deficiences in Russell’s chapters on ancient topics. For example, the missing or too shortly discussed subjects, according to Heitzman, included Gorgias, Zeno and the logic of the Stoics. Although Russell intended to emphasise issues in political and social philosophies, in Heitzman’s eyes he missed the cosmopolitanism of the Cynics and misrepresented the problem of the Sophists and democracy. Finally, Russell aimed to present various philosophers as the effects of their social conditions, but he failed to illustrate this with Antisthenes of Athens (not an Athenian citizen) and his philosophy of cynicism.<\/p>\n<\/div> In August 17-18th T. Mr\u00f3z took part in the sixth annual History of Analytic Philosophy Workshop organised by Tilburg Center for Moral Philosophy, Epistemology andPhilosophy of Science. This year’s meeting was devoted to Global Reception of Russell’s Scientific Philosophy. T. Mr\u00f3z’s paper was prepared in co-operation with Pawe\u0142 Polak (The Pontifical University of John Paul … Continue reading ![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.aphr.ifil.uz.zgora.pl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/Lutos-letter-783x1024.jpg\")
<\/figure>![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.aphr.ifil.uz.zgora.pl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/heitz-web-689x1024.jpg\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"