Karol Frenkel and the tradition of ethics 2022 Stefan Konstańczak.pdf

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