I, 1938; Vol. II, 1939). With his new work in aesthetics, Negulescu expanded his system into psychological determinism, from personality types; he also proposed that art history was a continuous dialogue between "critical analysis" and "imagination", which succeeded and tempered each other. Scholar Dan Grigorescu views "Geneza formelor culturii" as Negulescu's masterpiece, but notes that its system of references, comprising Georges Dumas, Joseph Jastrow, Ernst Kretschmer, Theodor Lipps and Paulin Malapert, was quickly outdated. At core, Grigorescu proposes, "Geneza" was a Renaissance idea, but also similar to contemporary musings by Albert Einstein and Leslie White. At the university, Negulescu held a series of courses that were later also published: "Enciclopedia filosofiei" ("The Encyclopedia of Philosophy", 1924–1926), "Istoria filosofiei. Pozitivismul francez contemporan" ("A History of Philosophy. Contemporary French Positivism", 1924–1925), "Problema ontologică" ("The Ontological Issue", 1927–1928), "Problema epistemologiei" ("The Epistemological Issue", 1930–1932) and "Enciclopedia filosofiei. Problema cosmologică" ("The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The Cosmological Issue", 1935–1937). His work was carried in interwar newspapers and magazines, primarily the PP's "Îndreptarea", "Ideea Europeană", and "Revista de Filosofie". Negulescu advanced to the rank of titular member of the Romanian Academy in 1936. By then, he was an increasingly isolated critic of the prevailing cultural and political tendencies. Against the protectionism favored by the intellectual class, who felt threatened by the Great Depression, he developed a meritocratic and classically liberal scheme, outlined in "Destinul Omenirii". He suggested that intellectuals were clients of the state, who expected secure jobs in the bureaucracy, but who took no personal responsibility for their fate; he favored deregulation and saw the crisis as an opportunity for advancement. Such ideas were expressly rejected by the young right-wing radicals Mircea Eliade and Mihail Polihroniade, who noted that, in his day, Negulescu had had an irreplicable chance at social advancement.