Attention is also paid to Twardowski’s successors such as Kazimierz Ajdukiewicz, Tadeusz Czeżowski, and Kotarbiński, who were guided by the idea that ‘the subjects of humanities are expressions of mental products’ (p. 281). Darius Łukasiewicz, speaking of Czeżowski’s ‘Brentanian turn’ (p. 122), admits a definite influence of Jan Łukasiewicz even in the adoption of Brentano, and explains how Czeżowski nevertheless kept his footing in both moral aspects of philosophy and accurate methods, as many LWS scholars did. The moral connotation that Czeżowski found in Twardowski’s theory of action and products also resonates with Kotarbiński’s formal analysis, as Marta Zaręba discusses. Her paper builds a firm bridge between the LWS and the Anglo-Saxon modus operandi. Stepan Ivanyk’s chapter, entitled ‘The Lvov-Warsaw School as a Multicultural Phenomenon, Ukrainian Aspect’, deserves special mention, for it deals with the Ukrainian city that nurtured the ideas of the School. It is indeed important to understand that the Galicia’s capital Lvov on the side of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the reborn capital Warsaw that belonged to Imperial Russia for centuries faced varying socio-political circumstances. Hence the philosophy of the LWS, which in principle reflected contemporary problems and maintained the sense of reality, might have resulted in different investigations. As he points out, Twardowski was as much remarkable to Ukrainian students as for Poles. Neither nationality nor ethnicity mattered to Twardowski in his teachings. The luminary opened his lectures to Jewish students, too (p. 57). Marcin Tkaczyk’s contribution also emphasizes the influence that the LWS exerted on the theologians of the Cracow Circle, including Józef M. Bocheński and Jan Salamucha, who held the applicability of formal argumentations in high regard. Both authors took regional dynamics within modern Polish cities into account. Overall, the editors of this book have succeeded in providing new research perspectives on the LWS. They have not, however, discussed the concept of European culture enough. In order to understand the LWS’s role more precisely, it is necessary to rethink the history of the School in the wider social and intellectual contexts of the twentieth century.

中文翻译：

---

在中欧建立国籍，1880-1950。上西里西亚的现代性、暴力和（成为）渴望

还注意到 Twardowski 的继任者，如 Kazimierz Ajdukiewicz、Tadeusz Czeżowski 和 Kotarbiński，他们以“人文学科是精神产品的表达”（第 281 页）的思想为指导。Darius Łukasiewicz 在谈到 Czeżowski 的“Brentanian 转向”（第 122 页）时，承认 Jan Łukasiewicz 即使在采用 Brentano 方面也有一定的影响，并解释了 Czeżowski 如何在哲学的道德方面和准确的方法方面保持立足点，因为许多LWS 学者做到了。正如 Marta Zaręba 所讨论的，Czeżowski 在 Twardowski 的行动和产品理论中发现的道德内涵也与 Kotarbiński 的形式分析产生共鸣。她的论文在 LWS 和盎格鲁-撒克逊人的作案手法之间架起了牢固的桥梁。Stepan Ivanyk 的章节，题为“作为多元文化现象的利沃夫华沙学校”，乌克兰方面'，值得特别一提，因为它涉及培养学校理念的乌克兰城市。了解奥匈帝国一侧的加利西亚首都利沃夫和几个世纪以来属于俄罗斯帝国的重生首都华沙面临着不同的社会政治环境确实很重要。因此，原则上反映当代问题并保持现实感的 LWS 哲学可能会导致不同的调查。正如他所指出的，Twardowski 对乌克兰学生和对波兰人来说都是非凡的。在 Twardowski 的教义中，国籍和种族都无关紧要。这位杰出人物也向犹太学生开放了他的讲座（第 57 页）。Marcin Tkaczyk 的贡献还强调了 LWS 对 Cracow Circle 神学家的影响，包括 Józef M. Bocheński 和 Jan Salamucha，他们高度重视形式论证的适用性。两位作者都考虑了现代波兰城市的区域动态。总的来说，本书的编辑们成功地为 LWS 提供了新的研究视角。然而，他们还没有充分讨论欧洲文化的概念。为了更准确地理解 LWS 的作用，有必要在 20 世纪更广泛的社会和知识背景下重新思考学校的历史。两位作者都考虑了现代波兰城市的区域动态。总的来说，本书的编辑们成功地为 LWS 提供了新的研究视角。然而，他们还没有充分讨论欧洲文化的概念。为了更准确地理解 LWS 的作用，有必要在 20 世纪更广泛的社会和知识背景下重新思考学校的历史。两位作者都考虑了现代波兰城市的区域动态。总的来说，本书的编辑们成功地为 LWS 提供了新的研究视角。然而，他们还没有充分讨论欧洲文化的概念。为了更准确地理解 LWS 的作用，有必要在 20 世纪更广泛的社会和知识背景下重新思考学校的历史。