This article aims to reconstruct Max Scheler’s conception of three types of knowledge, outlined in his late work Philosophical Perspectives (1928). Scheler distinguished three kinds of knowledge: empirical, used to exercise control over nature, eidetic (essential) and metaphysical. I review the epistemological criteria that underlie this distinction, and its functionalistic assumptions. In the article’s polemic part I accuse Scheler of a) crypto-dualism in his theory of knowledge, which draws insufficient distinctions between metaphysical and eidetic knowledge; b) totally omitting the status of the humanities in his classification of knowledge types; c) consistently developing a philosophy of knowledge without resort to the research tools offered by the philosophy of science, which takes such analyses out of their social and historical context (i.e., how knowledge is created in today’s scientific communities).

The author reviews the main elements of Richard Münch’s academic capitalism theory. By introducing categories like “audit university” or “entrepreneurial university,” the German sociologist critically sets the present academic management model against the earlier, modern-era conception of academic research as an “exchange of gifts.” In the sociological and psychological sense, the latter is a social communication structure rooted in traditional social lore, for instance the potlatch ceremonies celebrated by some North-American Indian tribes which Marcel Mauss described. Münch shows the similarities between that old “gift exchanging” model and the contemporary one with its focus on the psychosocial fundamentals of scientific praxis, and from this gradually derives the academic capitalism conception. His conclusion is the critical claim that science possesses its own, inalienable axiological autonomy and anthropological dimension, which degenerate in result of capitalism’s “colonisation” of science by means of state authority and money (here Münch refers to Jürgen Habermas’s philosophical argumentation). The author also offers many of his own reflections on the problem, which allows Münch’s analyses to be viewed in a somewhat broader context.

Autor rekonstruuje w tekście główne wątki filozofii nauk humanistycznych Jürgena Mittelstrassa. Niemiecki filozof wychodząc od krytyki tzw. funkcjonalistycznej, dualistycznej koncepcji humanistyki autorstwa J. Rittera-O. Marquarda, staje na stanowisku metodologicznego monizmu zakładającego jedność wszystkich nauk na gruncie uniwersalnych reguł racjonalności. Szuka przy tym symptomów tej jedności zarówno w tendencjach transdyscyplinarnych współczesnej nauki, jak i w pewnych wspólnych założeniach epistemologicznych oraz podobieństwach praktyk badawczych nauk. Autor zwraca uwagę na inspiracje kantowskie Mittelstrassa, który adaptuje interesująco dla potrzeb swej argumentacji kategorię „władzy sądzenia”. W podsumowaniu rozważań pojawiają się obok pozytywnej ogólnej oceny omawianej koncepcji także pewne uwagi krytyczne autora pod jej adresem.