The discovery of Florian Znaniecki's oeuvre is like the discovery of America: when you think you know something, you realize that it is less then you knew before. A synthesis of Znaniecki's legacy is still a challenge. Are Znaniecki's ideas up to date? Is there anything intriguing for contemporary sensibility? Those questions occur in many commentaries and that way of thinking makes a wide rut for interpreters. But there is another, narrower mode for those questions: what about the unfulfilled reception of Znaniecki's works? The motivation for this approach can be explained in the following way: the separation of philosophical ideas from sociological ones within Znaniecki's oeuvre is as superficial and useless as frequently occurring in its reception. Naturally, commentators' preferences, the biliguality of Znaniecki's texts, the interests and goals of the author and the readers are circumstances conductive to many interpretations and misinterpretations as well. There are typical ways of reading and mis-reading every text which stand the test of time. But in the case of Znaniecki's works we have to do with particular omissions and misunderstandings. To avoid this, the paper offers a commentary on two of Znaniecki's ideas which meet such unfulfilled receptions: first, the idea of 'concrete reality' as a habitat of a non-Cartesian subject, and second, the idea of 'experience' being an alternative to the scientific idea of experience.