enormous intellectual richness. The various literary and
philosophical contexts that Brzozowski absorbed and digested and the manifold
intellectual processes that he triggered and inspired (up to the present) testify to
this. It is worth reading Brzozowski notably for the space of possibilities that his
intellectual legacy introduces to us. To think about what could have been proves
a useful tool to understand the actual functioning of a cultural setting, a historical
configuration. We acquire new perspectives and often unexpected insights in the
century (perhaps with Nietzsche in one direction, with Frege in
another, and with Peirce in yet another). Signs increased that Bewusstseinsphi-
losophie was ceding ground to symbolic practices—language—that not only
carry meaning but are at the source of meaning.
Habermas does not hold, however, that the succession from being to con-
sciousness to language involves radical discontinuity, such that it would be diffi-
cult to speak of the “history” ofphilosophy. We are, it is true, he holds, in a post-
metaphysical era of philosophizing (that is, beyond being and the
“mechanists,” and its
philosophical ground can be found in Nikolay Lossky, History of Russian Philosophy
(New York: International Universities Press, 1951), 347–356.
The Stalinist Reception of Brzozowski’s Philosophy | 305
in the historyofphilosophy, however, they used it mostly to consolidate their
stance. Owing to the influence of academic publishers and references to Engels
and Lenin in their writings,8 dialecticians led the official criticism of ideological
opposition in April 1929; it was not a long-lasting victory. At the beginning of
1931, an act
26 Stanisław Brzozowski, “Testament Cypriana Norwida,” in Kultura i życie, 220f.
27 Brzozowski, Idee, 332.
Brzozowski and C. K. Norwid’s Legacy | 221
The context of Norwid in consideration of Brzozowski’s philosophy of labor
became an important area of study in the history of ideas, as it situates Norwid’s
thought within the context of the philosophy of Cieszkowski, Trentowski, and
Libelt. This then undoubtedly connects Norwid with his own period and solidi-
fies the status of his works in history—maybe more in the historyofphilosophy
and aesthetics than