文档介绍：该【Karol Frenkel and the tradition of ethics 2022 Stefan Konstańczak 】是由【贾赦】上传分享，文档一共【9】页，该文档可以免费在线阅读，需要了解更多关于【Karol Frenkel and the tradition of ethics 2022 Stefan Konstańczak 】的内容，可以使用淘豆网的站内搜索功能，选择自己适合的文档，以下文字是截取该文章内的部分文字，如需要获得完整电子版，请下载此文档到您的设备，方便您编辑和打印。Ethics&Bioethics(inCentralEurope),2022,12(1–2),29–37DOI:-2022-0009
KarolFrenkelandthetraditionofethics
StefanKonstańczak1
Abstract
KarolFrenkelwasoneofKazimierzTwardowski’sfirstdisciplestoundertakeanattempttodeveloptheirown
,theprocessofdevelopinghisownethicalconceptinvolvedquestioningthetradition
,hewasabletoformulateanoriginalconceptofindependentethics.
Inhisdoctoraldissertation,Frenkelanalyzedtwoethicalsystems,formulatedbyDavidHumeandArthur
,theseproposals
turnedouttobeunsatisfactory,andthusheproposedhisownsolutionderivedfromtheacceptedconceptof
’sperspective,itwasthefirstreflectioninPolandreferringtoscientificethics,which–
chronologicallyspeaking–inmanyrespectsprecededtheanalogoussolutionsproposedlaterbyBritishanalytical
philosophers.
Keywords:KarolFrenkel,ethics,KazimierzTwardowski,TheLvov–WarsawSchool,DavidHume,Artur
Schopenhauer
Introduction
KazimierzTwardowskitookthechairofphilosophyatJanKazimierzUniversityin1895,which
promotedagroupofphilosophydoctorswhoweredevelopingtheviewsoftheirmaster,though
formed,commonlyknownastheLvov-,
whoquicklygainedrecognitionintheworldofscience,inalmostalldisciplinesofthe
humanities,
thisrulewasethics,inwhichTwardowskididnoteducateanysuccessorswhowouldreplace
,however,that
supervisionofTwardowski,ThecomparisonofSpencer’sandMill’sethicalsystems,was
’sworkwasveryhighly
appreciatedbyTwardowski,whogavehimanexcellentgrade(Twardowski,1912,),but
thisdidnothelpthedoctoralstudenttofindafull-
situationtookplaceinthecaseofKarolFrenkel(1891–1920),anotherofTwardowski’.
students,,Frenkelundertook
acomparativeanalysisoftwoethicalconcepts:DavidHume’sandArthurSchopenhauer’
,
whoprobablyceasedtobeinterestedinethicsbecauseitsprinciplesdidnotpreventthe
contactwithgeopoliticalrealities,andhencehepreferredtofocusonpsychologyand
,Frenkel’sdoctoratewasakindofcaesurabothinTwardowski’screative
biography,
givinglecturesonethics,
aresult,afterTwardowski’sretirement,theseclassesweretakenoverbyhissuccessor,
KazimierzAjdukiewicz,,KarolFrenkelgained
symbolicsignificanceinthehistoryofPolishethicsbecausehisviewsconstituteatransitional
,healso
1UniversityofZielonaGóra(Poland);S.******@;ORCID:0000-0001-8911-1257
29
didnotmanagetorecordsignificantachievementsinthehistoryofPolishethics,whichhe
today,whichisencouragedbythe130thanniversaryofFrenkel’
indicationsthathecouldhaverevolutionizedPolishethics,butunfortunately,byatwistoffate,
hewasnotallowedtoimplementhisscholarlyplans.
FrenkelandTwardowski
Throughouthisbusylife,Twardowskiattemptedtodevelopaprogramofscientificethics,.,
,
andhemayreasonablybeconsideredthemostoutstandingethicistinthehistoryofthis
,despitehisfree-thinkingapproachtolifeandscience,theimpact
ofTwrdowski’sethicalviewsonhisownuniversity’smilieuandthelocalsocietywas
,hemusthavebeenawareofthisfact,andhencehesoughtaperson
representativeofalargecircleofGalicianJews,.,thenationalminority,andhecamefrom
Sokal,,thisdidnotpreventhimfrombeingat
thesametimeafreethinker,andapersonlooselyconnectedwiththetraditionofhisnation.
Twardowskihadnodoubtthatonlysuchapersoncouldcarryoutaprojectofscientificethics
intheacademiccommunity,becausepeoplemorestronglyassociatedwiththereligious
traditionwouldnotbeable,forreasonsrelatedtotheirmentality,tobreakawayfromtheir
tradition,andcouldatmostonlyslightlymodifyit.
Mostlikely,haditnotbeenforWorldWarI,KarolFrenkelwouldbetodayoneofthemost
importantfiguresoftheLvov-
factthatattheageof23hewasalreadyaDoctorofphilosophy,anddespitethebreakinhis
scholarlyresearchcausedbythewar,
,weknowlittleabouthislife,scarceinformationhasbeenpreservedonlyinthe
time,hepresentedhisbiographyinjustafewsentences(,1914,
).ThedifficultbeginningsofthereconstructionofthePolishstateafterWorldWarIhad
tothescholarlyambitionsoftheyoungdoctor,whoatthattimehadtotakenonprestigiouspost
ofauniversitylibraryintern.
Frenkelseemstohavebeenapromisingresearcher,comprehensivelypreparedforscholarly
,andhisrelationshipwithTwardowski’sotherstudents
contradicttheopinionsaboutthediscriminationofrepresentativesoftheJewishfaithinstate
,itdoesnotchangethefactthatduringthisperiod,
Frenkeldidnothaveachancetodemonstratehisabilities,andthereforealsotoreplace
Twardowskiinethicsclasses.
InPoland,KarolFrenkelwasoneofthefirsttoundertaketheefforttodevelopasystemof
,hechoseSympathyand
compassioninHume’sandSchopenhauer’
thistopicwasimposedbyhissupervisor,becauseTwardowskineverdealtwiththeoeuvresof
,inthedissertation,onecanfindtheinfluenceoftheJewish
tradition,accordingtowhichmanhastheopportunitytolearnabouttheoriginnotonlyofthe
world,,mancandiscoverthelawsgoverningtheworldand
hisownexistence,which,however,ispossibleonlybecauseofthemotivethatdriveshim–the
,asman,ineffectofgettingknowledgecreates
,itshouldbecomeaninstrumentofmoral
30
ofSchopenhauer,,thereasonfor
Frenkel’,itisfar
moredifficulttofindsuchacauseinthecaseofHume’
wasprobablythefactthatTwardowski,approvingatleastinparttheviewsofhisteacherFranz
Brentano,noticedtheircloserrelationshipwiththephilosophyofmoralitydevelopedbyHume.
ThemomentumofFrenkel’sdoctoraldissertationwasimpressive,andclearlyexceededthe
injustonescholarlyarticle.
Meditationsonethicaltradition
Inhisdoctoraldissertation,Frenkelmadeacomparativeanalysisoftheroleofsympathyand
,hebelieved
thatlearningaboutthemechanismsgoverningtheemotionalsphereofmanwouldprovide
discussedtheroleofsympathyandcompassioninthefollowingthreeaspects(Frenkel,1914,
):
;
;
.
Inhisdoctoraldissertation,Frenkelalsoaddressedtheissueofthesourcesofethical
judgments,theconsequenceofwhicharehumanmoralresolutions,andtheimportanceof
dissertation,however,isnotatextbook,asapparentlyitpossessesthecharacterofpersonal
,but
inhisdissertationFrenkelhimselfassumedthatitispossibletomakecomparisonsofsuch
distantethicalconcepts,as,forbothHumeandSchopenhauer,theethicalconsiderations
concernthepracticalsphere,,itsbasisisnot
thestudyofmoralityassuch,butrather“actuallyprofessed,.,commonethicalevaluations
andmoralactions,anditstaskistoexplainthesefacts,toreduceethicalassessmentstothe
basicgeneralprinciplesofevaluation,todetectthesourceofevaluationandtoindicatethe
causesofmoralbehavior”(Frenkel,1914,).Themaindifferencebetweentheviewsofthe
twophilosophersliesinthefactthatforHumeethicsremainsapracticaldiscipline,.,ithas
apracticalapplicationtoguidehumanbehavior,whileSchopenhauerrejectsthisview,asfor
himethicsandphilosophy,asawholeremain,theoreticaldisciplines,speakingonlyaboutwhat
is,
acceptingSchopenhauer’sposition,whilecontemporaryscholarlytrends,whichheintendedto
enrich,wouldrequireapprovalofHume’ssolution.
Thus,hisdoctoratewasoneofthefirstpublicationsinPolandpresentingtheoriginalideaof
,theauthorintroducedhisownassessmentsandreflections,
which,moreover,promptedhimtopresenttheresultsofhisinvestigationsinaseparatepartof
,then,
waswhethertheyappearspontaneouslyinrelationshipswiththeother,orwhethertheyareonly
,both
HumeandSchopenhauerweresupportersoftheallogeneictheoryoffeelings,andtherefore,
accordingtothem,
withthem,statingthat:“…thereasonforthisviewwastheirwrongbeliefthatonecantakean
emotionalpartinthefeelingsoftheotheronlybymakingthemone’sown,byrecreatingthem
inoneselfsympathetically(foronecannotfeelthefeelingsoftheother)”(Frenkel,1914,pp.
31
84–85).Thetheoryabouttheidiogenicityofmentalstateswassoobvioustohimthatheeven
feltexemptfromjustifyingit.
InFrenkel’sopinion,thisdidnotpreventeitherofthecomparedphilosophersfromtreating
ethicsasbothadescriptiveandexplanatorydiscipline,whichwasrevealedinmakingethical
,heformulatedexaggeratedgeneralizations,arguingthatethicsderived
fromegoismplaynoroleinphilosophy,sincethesubjectofethicrefersonlytoethicaland
moralfacts(Frenkel,1914,).Egoism,ontheotherhand,isnotthecauseofbehaviourthat
science,andthus,followingthephilosopherswhoseviewsheopposedinhisdissertation,
,inconclusion,heputforwardaninterestingthesisthat
althoughbothethicalconceptscomefromoppositeassumptions,thesolutionspresentedin
’sdenialofwillleadstosuppressionofsuffering,whileforHume
,henoticedthedifferences
betweenthetwophilosophers,suchasconcerningtheirunderstandingofjusticeandaltruistic
actionsandthesourcesofhumanevaluations,buthetriedtoexposemainlythatwhichthetwo