  Nonetheless, the frequently exclusive focus on Ingarden’s work in aesthetics is somewhat unfortunate and can be misleading about his overall philosophical focus and goals. For Ingarden produced an enormous body of work on a wide variety of topics. He raised early and important criticisms of what he called “methodological Positivism” in a paper delivered in 1934 to the 8th World Congress of Philosophy in Prague, where Rudolf Carnap and Otto Neurath were present as respondents. There Ingarden argues that, by the positivist’s own lights, ‘metalogical’ sentences about sentences should be counted as meaningless, since sentences themselves are not mere physical objects (to be sentences they must have a certain sense), and yet the methodological Positivist accepts only sentences about the physical as intersubjectively verifiable. If on the other hand, we do consider sentences to be mere physical ‘mounds of ink’ or ‘sound waves’, then they would not be verifiable (this, he seems to be suggesting, would be something like a category mistake: how can one verify a heap of ink?). Moreover, he argues (in what Pelletier and Linsky (2018) identify as a version of the ‘Hysteron Proteron Objection’) that in order to decide whether a sentence is verifiable, one must first identify its meaning “independently of its verification”. The paper is now translated into English as “A Logical Attempt at a New Formulation of Philosophy: A Critical Remark”, and reprinted alongside the brief responses by Rudolf Carnap and Otto Neurath, and interesting contemporary discussion and evaluation by Pelletier and Linsky (2018), who suggest that Carnap never adequately responded to these criticisms. 