Krasiński studied law in Warsaw. In 1829 he departed for Geneva. From then on, he continued to live abroad, dividing his time primarily between Italy and France. In Geneva he met Adam Mickiewicz, who ultimately proved to have a strong influence on Krasiński's subsequent intellectual development. He engaged in serious studies of European literature and philosophy, developing his own views under the influence of such thinkers as Pierre-Simon Ballanche, Joseph de Maistre, Jules Michelet, Johann Gotfried Herder, Friedrich Wilhelm von Schelling. Among Polish authors, August Cieszkowski turned out, alongside Mickiewicz, to possess a mind most kindred to Krasiński's in terms of worldview. Krasiński recorded his impressions from and reflections on readings of Cieszkowski's works in his correspondence to family and friends.
Krasiński was wealthy and financially independent, rendering his life different from that of a majority of émigré writers. As the bearer of a ducal title, he was a member of the international aristocracy. The most dramatic realms of his life were those associated with his father, Wincenty Krasiński, who was first one of Napoleon's generals and later became a loyal subject of the Russian Tsar. The poet rebelled at this move and chose to flee his father's influence, never quite escaping entirely. For instance, Krasiński abandoned his studies of the law when he was boycotted by his peers for refusing to participate in a public demonstration, something he did under pressure from his father. Krasiński ultimately chose to live abroad in an effort to escape the plans his father had laid for him, which would have made the writer a diplomat in the tsar's service. His father continued to interfere in Krasiński's personal life, breaking up his romantic affairs and ordering the writer to wed. Krasiński's own views differed markedly from those of his father. Nevertheless, his writing forever contained a feudal motif - the leading role of the aristocracy in the development of public life - that was indubitably a relic of his family heritage. In a period of the rise of programs of social reform and political moods that tended towards the radical, Krasiński was a staunch conservative, an enemy of revolution and of all manner of armed insurgency, even in the name of national independence.
Krasiński is traditionally considered part of Poland's "trinity of poets," a trio of prophetic writers whose reflections on the history of humankind and the nation were simultaneously akin to predictions of the direction history would take, and therefore considered visions of the future. Like Mickiewicz and Słowacki, Krasiński saw history as a gradual process moving towards the realization of a transcendental aim - the building of the Kingdom of God on earth. Basic tenets of Krasiński's philosophy consisted of the acceptance of God as both a transcendental, personalized being and as Providence, which is embodied in history as its law of development. According to his philosophy, humanity is lead in its quest towards ultimate objectives by the Polish nation, made worthy of this role by its past and its suffering. The Polish nation, in turn, is lead by old noble families, who embody the most elevated of traditions. In its most mature form, Krasiński's "messianism" is a conservative version of Romantic philosophy.
Krasiński made his first attempts at literature while still in Warsaw. Shortly after emigrating, as a youth of some twenty years, he wrote and anonymously published his two most outstanding dramatic works: Nie-Boska komedia (The Un-divine Comedy) (1835) and Irydion (1836).
The Un-divine Comedy is an outstanding example of Romantic, metaphysical drama. In the play, earthly reality intertwines with the sacral realm, the order of the real interferes with Providence, and historicism is combined with morality play. As in Mickiewicz's Dziady (Forefather's Eve), the protagonist's story is divided into stages, the first focusing on his private life (parts I and II) and the second consisting largely of public service (parts III and IV). However, in contrast to Mickiewicz's Gustav-Konrad, both incarnations of Krasiński's protagonist in The Un-divine Comedy - the Husband and Count Henry - embody falsity and erroneous motivation, and neither can be said to be objectively in the right. As the Husband and poet, the hero disdains family life, neglecting his young, visionary son and his wife, who he ultimately drives to insanity and death. He is the embodiment of conceit and egotism, the worst possible version of Romantic individualism and poetry that transforms real suffering into literature. He is punished when a tragedy occurs in the family; he is brought onto the righteous path of Evangelical love and service to humankind by the voice of the Guardian Angel. However, he proves incapable of committing a tragic error on this path as well: he takes up arms as the leader of the defenders of the Trenches of the Holy Trinity without abandoning his former vanity and lust for fame. Parts III and IV of the play depict Krasiński's vision of revolution. He posits the clash of two camps: on one hand the aristocratic that honors tradition and Christian values, and the democratic and atheistic on the other. Both camps are presented as incapable of creatively shaping reality. The aristocracy has shrunk and lost site of its former ideals. The democrats are a dark and destructive crowd that is lead by fanatics and professional revolutionaries. The scenes in which Count Henry wanders through the revolutionary camp evoke images of Dante's inferno combined with the darkest visions of Jacobean terror. The play's climactic scene is a great polemic between two ideological foes: the Count, a defender of the old order, and Pankracy, the leader of the revolutionaries, who believes that paradise can be built upon the ruins of a world destroyed. Ultimately, both sides suffer defeat. The revolution proves victorious, but Pankracy is pursued by terrible doubts. Ultimately, he is paralyzed by a vision of Christ the Avenger and dies crying "Galilae vicisti" (Galilean, you have won). Krasiński seems to say that in historical reality neither side can be fully in the right. Righteousness resides solely in the divine dimension, and it can be brought into the world by none other than Providence and the forces aligned with it. Man caught up in history is always a tragic figure, condemned to be imperfect and make the wrong choices.