The article analyses physicists’ attitudes towards philosophy on the examples of the positions of eminent theorists. There are two physicists’ philosophical attitudes towards philosophy: pro-philosophical (Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, von Weizsäcker, Penrose, Rovelli) and anti-philosophical (Weinberg, Hawking, Feynman). I analyse some physicists' arguments for or against philosophy. It is demonstrated that physicists are most critical of all philosophical conceptions that accept a priori factors in cognition, while those who recognize the significance of philosophy for science most often refer to the Pythagorean-Platonic tradition as the proper basis for understanding modern physics.

The presented article is a review of the book Spór o prawa dziejowe: kontrowersje wokół Henry'ego Thomasa Buckle'a w Polsce w dobie pozytywizmu (Debate Over the Laws of History: Controversy Concerning Henry Thomas Buckle's Views in Poland in the Age of Positivism) by the late Andrzej Grabski. The book, published after Grabski's death by his students is an important analysis of Thomas Henry Buckle's views and their reception in Poland and abroad.

Positivism is a family of philosophical views characterized by a highly favorable account of science. The characteristic theses of positivism are that science is the only valid knowledge and that philosophy does not possess a method different from science (scientism). Positivists attempted to eliminate all metaphysical components in the area of philosophy. Wolniewicz was one of the most original Polish analytical philosophers of second part of 20th century and he was a strong opponent of anti-metaphysical tendencies. The author discusses the problem of the relationship between science and philosophy and presents Wolniewicz’s arguments against positivism and scientism.

The article considers Lesya Ukrainka’s analytical and review work (born Larysa Kosacz – 1871‑1913) Notes about the Latest Polish Literature, published in the Russian magazine “Life” (1901, № 1). The writer chose not an analytical, but an analytical‑ironic “tone”, emphasizing the merits of Polish romantic poets headed by Adam Mickiewicz, as well as poets of the “Ukrainian school” of Polish Romanticism along with outstanding positivist writers (Bolesław Prus, Eliza Orzeszkowa, Henryk Sienkiewicz), without limiting these writers to populism, and stating their aesthetic tastes and ideological positions. The author pays most attention to the new Polish poetry, which had awoken “after thirty years of half sleep” in the age of modernism, in which she saw echoes of various “pessimistic movements” of world literature. At the same time, Lesya Ukrainka believed that Polish modernism had also its own ground, its appearance was prepared by the tragic contradictions of the Romantics, the collapse of the Polish szlachta ‘noble‑gentry’ ideals, and the degeneracy of positivist‑populist literature. The author pays most attention to the new aesthetics of Stanisław Przybyszewski and his manifesto of Polish modernism with its slogan of “art for art’s sake”.

This article is an attempt to identify the essence of new positivism, described by Ludwik Ehrlich as a method of interpretation of international law. The evolution of his views on international law is examined with respect to the place of this method from the beginning of 1920s until his retirement in 1961. The article expounds on both the theoretical and methodological aspects of new positivism, according to which judicial decisions should be taken into account in addition to international treaties and customs for the determination of international law. The question of the obligatory force of international law is discussed as being related to the principle of good faith, which is at the core of Ehrlich’s views on international law. The article offers suggestions on how the method of new positivism might be used and what tasks it can fulfil today. It also makes an attempt to critically analyse Ehrlich’s method and to characterize it both in general and in the context of the theory of international law.

The author in the terms of idealisation theory of science explicates two visions of history represented by positivism (Hempel) and narrativism (White) and paraphrases some paradoxes of historical narrative elaborated by mentioned-above representatives of these standpoints what is argument for the unity of science presupposed by idealisational theory of science.

Roman Ingarden was an eminent philosopher who worked in various fields of philosophy, especially in the areas of ontology, aesthetics and ethics. In addition to his systematic analyses, we find in his work remarkable statements regarding the nature of philosophy, its relation to science, or the specificity of its methods. These metaphilosophical remarks were formulated in systematic works as well as in texts of more disputable nature. In this paper Ingarden’s metaphilosophy is presented in the context of thought of Franz Brentano and Tadeusz Kotarbiński. It is also discussed against the background of metaphilosophical assumptions of the logical positivists from the Vienna Circle.