The point of departure in the paper is the problem of Heidegger’s interpretation of Nietzsche’s thought in the light of the problematic term “Perspektivismus”. The author explicates the methodological position taken by Heidegger in his interpretation to give an answer to the question of epistemical, ontological or methodological domain of perspectivism.

The paper aims to reconstruct Heidegger’s historical-intentional assumptions in his ontological interpretation of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. The paper presents young Heidegger’s project of the “metaphysical-teleological interpretation of consciousness.” The project indicates the direction of his further ontological interpretation of transcendentalism: Heidegger stands up to the traditional, well known neo-Kantian interpretation of the Critique, and offers a new conception of ontological knowledge and cognition. According to this conception, cognition is grounded in transcendental imagination where a threefold synthesis takes place. (...) Heidegger’s original temporal interpretation of transcendental schematism is also recalled to stress the significance of his new ontological approach to Kant’s theoretical philosophy. (shrink)

Stanislaw Lesniewski’s interests were, for the most part, more philosophical than mathematical. Prior to taking his doctorate at Jan Kazimierz University in Lvov, Lesniewski had spent time at several continental universities, apparently becoming relatively attached to the philosophy of one of his teachers, Hans Comelius, to the chapters of John Stuart Mill’s System of Logic that dealt specifically with semantics, and, in general, to studies of general grammar and philosophy of language. In these several early interests are already (...) to be found the roots of the work that was to occupy Lesniewski’s life: a search for a definitive doctrine of what sorts of things there are in the world, or better, of what language must be like if it is adequately and efficiently to represent the world. (shrink)

Leśniewski’s systems deviate greatly from standard logic in some basic features. The deviant aspects are rather well known, and often cited among the reasons why Leśniewski’s work enjoys little recognition. This paper is an attempt to explain why those aspects should be there at all. Leśniewski built his systems inspired by a dream close to Leibniz’s characteristica universalis: a perfect system of deductive theories encoding our knowledge of the world, based on a perfect language. My main claim is that Leśniewski (...) built his characteristica universalis following the conditions of de Jong and Betti’s Classical Model of Science (2008) to an astounding degree. While showing this I give an overview of the architecture of Leśniewski’s systems and of their fundamental characteristics. I suggest among others that the aesthetic constraints Leśniewski put on axioms and primitive terms have epistemological relevance. (shrink)

"Lesniewski defined ontology, one of his three foundational systems, as 'a certain kind of modernized 'traditional logic' [On the foundations of mathematics (FM), p. 176]. In this respect it is worth bearing in mind that in the 1937-38 academic year Lesniewski taught a course called "Traditional 'formal logic' and traditional 'set theory' on the ground of ontology"; cf. Srzednicki and Stachniak, S. Lesniewski's Systems. Protothetic, 1988, p. 180. On this see Kotarbinski Gnosiology. The scientific approach to the (...) theory of knowledge, 1966, pp. 253-54 [the Polish original was published in 1929], which Lesniewski praised in [FM]: see in particular pp. 373 ff. Kotarbinski noted that Lesniewski "calls his system 'ontology' in harmony with certain terms used earlier (as in.. (shrink)

Formalism used by Leśniewski to present mathematical theory is called a radical one. According to the author, it is the implementation of the postulates of the so-called formal arithmeticians. Mathematical theory is presented as a pure game of formulas devoid of content. It is governed by the precise rules described in the metalanguage. The author stresses the difference between Leśniewski’s and Hilbert’s mathematical approaches.

This paper is a contribution to the reconstruction of Tarski’s semantic background in the light of the ideas of his master, Stanislaw Lesniewski. Although in his 1933 monograph Tarski credits Lesniewski with crucial negative results on the semantics of natural language, the conceptual relationship between the two logicians has never been investigated in a thorough manner. This paper shows that it was not Tarski, but Lesniewski who first avowed the impossibility of giving a satisfactory theory of truth (...) for ordinary language, and the necessity of sanitation of the latter for scientific purposes. In an early article (1913) Lesniewski gave an interesting solution to the Liar Paradox, which, although different from Tarski’s in detail, is nevertheless important to Tarski’s semantic background. To illustrate this I give an analysis of Lesniewski’s solution and of some related aspects of Lesniewski’s later thought. (shrink)

Sobocinski in his paper on Leśniewski's solution to Russell's paradox (1949b) argued that Leśniewski has succeeded in explaining it away. The general strategy of this alleged explanation is presented. The key element of this attempt is the distinction between the collective (mereological) and the distributive (set-theoretic) understanding of the set. The mereological part of the solution, although correct, is likely to fall short of providing foundations of mathematics. I argue that the remaining part of the solution which suggests a specific (...) reading of the distributive interpretation is unacceptable. It follows from it that every individual is an element of every individual. Finally, another Leśniewskian-style approach which uses so-called higher-order epsilon connectives is used and its weakness is indicated. (shrink)

With material on his early philosophical views, his contributions to set theory and his work on nominalism and higher-order quantification, this book offers a uniquely expansive critical commentary on one of analytical philosophy’s great ...

This article presents for the first time in english lesniewski's analysis of russell's antinomy as the analysis is given in lesniewski's 1914 paper "czy klasa klas, nie podporzadkowanych sobie, jest podporzadkowana sobie?" is the class of classes which are not subordinate to themselves subordinate to itself? it is shown how the concepts appearing in this paper, written in colloquial polish, were later incorporated and expressed as fundamental axioms and theorems of his theory of collective classes, mereology. in the (...) 1914 paper he asserted: i call any object p an object subordinate to a class k if in some sense of the expression "a" the following two conditions hold: 1) k is a class (of objects) "a", 2) p is an "a". using this explication of "p is subordinate to a class k," he showed that both of the following statements are false: a) the class of classes which are not subordinate to themselves is subordinate to itself, b) the class of classes which are not subordinate to themselves is not subordinate to itself; thus showing that russell's antinomy cannot be generated since its initial assumptions are false. (shrink)

During 1927-1931 Leśniewski published a series of articles (169 pages) entitled 'O podstawach matematyki' [On the Foundations of Mathematics] in the journal Przeglad Filozoficzny [Philosophical Review], and an abridged English translation of this series is presented here. With the exception of this work, all of Leśniewski's publications appearing after the first World War were written in German, and hence accessible to scholars and logicians in the West. This work, however, since written in Polish, has heretofore not been accessible to most (...) Western readers, and it is hoped that this translation will encourage both the study of Leśniewski's works as well as the further development of his theories. (shrink)

A first-order formulation of Leśniewski's ontology is formulated and shown to be interpretable within a free first-order logic of identity extended to include nominal quantification over proper and common-name concepts. The latter theory is then shown to be interpretable in monadic second-order predicate logic, which shows that the first-order part of Leśniewski's ontology is decidable.

In this paper, we shall give another proof of the faithfulness of Blass translation of the propositional fragment \ of Leśniewski’s ontology in the modal logic \ by means of Hintikka formula. And we extend the result to von Wright-type deontic logics, i.e., ten Smiley-Hanson systems of monadic deontic logic. As a result of observing the proofs we shall give general theorems on the faithfulness of B-translation with respect to normal modal logics complete to certain sets of well-known accessibility relations (...) with a restriction that transitivity and symmetry are not set at the same time. As an application of the theorems, for example, B-translation is faithful for the provability logic \ ), that is, \ \ \ \supset \Box \phi \). The faithfulness also holds for normal modal logics, e.g., \, \, \, \. We shall conclude this paper with the section of some open problems and conjectures. (shrink)

In this paper, we shall show that the following translation \(I^M\) from the propositional fragment \(\bf L_1\) of Leśniewski's ontology to modal logic \(\bf KTB\) is sound: for any formula \(\phi\) and \(\psi\) of \(\bf L_1\), it is defined as (M1) \(I^M(\phi \vee \psi) = I^M(\phi) \vee I^M(\psi)\), (M2) \(I^M(\neg \phi) = \neg I^M(\phi)\), (M3) \(I^M(\epsilon ab) = \Diamond p_a \supset p_a. \wedge. \Box p_a \supset \Box p_b.\wedge. \Diamond p_b \supset p_a\), where \(p_a\) and \(p_b\) are propositional variables corresponding to (...) the name variables \(a\) and \(b\), respectively. In the last, we shall give some comments including some open problems and my conjectures. (shrink)

The volume collects many of the most significant commentaries on, and contributions to, Protothetic. A Protothetic Bibliography is included.

SummaryThis article proposes to clarify the problem of interpreting Lesniewski's ontology. A distinction is made between two kinds of interpretation: substitutional and “natural”. Substitutional interpretation is shown to involve difficulties and limitations. A “natural” ontology, the major principles of which are presented here, is shown to be of considerable interest.

We formulate a certain subtheory of Ishimoto’s [1] quantifier-free fragment of Leśniewski’s ontology, and show that Ishimoto’s theory can be reconstructed in it. Using an epimorphism theorem we prove that our theory is complete with respect to a suitable set-theoretic interpretation. Furthermore, we introduce the name constant 1 and we prove its adequacy with respect to the set-theoretic interpretation. Ishimoto’s theory enriched by the constant 1 is also reconstructed in our formalism with into which 1 has been introduced. Finally we (...) examine for both our theories their quantifier extensions and their connections with Leśniewski’s classical quantified ontology. (shrink)

The propositional fragment L 1 of Leniewski's ontology is the smallest class (of formulas) containing besides all the instances of tautology the formulas of the forms: (a, b) (a, a), (a, b) (b,). (a, c) and (a, b) (b, c). (b, a) being closed under detachment. The purpose of this paper is to furnish another more constructive proof than that given earlier by one of us for: Theorem A is provable in L 1 iff TA is a thesis of first-order (...) predicate logic with equality, where T is a translation of the formulas of L 1 into those of first-order predicate logic with equality such that T(a, b) = FblxFax (Russeltian-type definite description), TA B = TA TB, T A = TA, etc. (shrink)

A structure A for the language L, which is the first-order language (without equality) whose only nonlogical symbol is the binary predicate symbol , is called a quasi -struoture iff (a) the universe A of A consists of sets and (b) a b is true in A ([p) a = {p } & p b] for every a and b in A, where a(b) is the name of a (b). A quasi -structure A is called an -structure iff (c) {p (...) } A whenever p a A. Then a closed formula in L is derivable from Leniewski's axiom x, y[x y u (u x) u; v(u, v x u v) u(u x u y)] (from the axiom x, y(x y x x) x, y, z(x y z y x z)) iff is true in every -structure (in every quasi -structure). (shrink)

In this paper, we want to present the genesis of Stanisław Leśniewski’s mereology. Although ‘mereology’ comes from theword ‘part’, mereology arose as a theory of collective classes. That is why we present the differences between the concepts of being a distributive class and being a collective class. Next, we present Leśniewski’s original mereology from 1927, but with a modern approach. Leśniewski was inspired to create his concept of classes and their elements by Russell’s antinomy. To face it, Leśniewski had to (...) define the concept of being an element of based on the concept of being part of. Leśniewski showed that in his theory, there is no equivalent to Russell’s antinomy. We will show that his solution has nothing to do with the original approach because, in both cases, we are talking about objects of a different kind. Russell’s original antinomy concerned distributive classes, and Leśsniewski’s considerations concerned collective classes. (shrink)

Following an idea first proposed by Jerzy Wróblewski, this paperexamines the usefulness of formal logic for comparative legal analysis. Subject of the comparison are the doctrines of mistake and attempt in Germanand English criminal law. These doctrines are distinguished by the interaction of deontic, epistemic and alethic modalities. I propose a purely extensional logic which is based on Leśniewski’s substitutional interpretation ofquantification to analyse differences in the logical structure of the variouscriminal law doctrines.

A Bilingual International Conference on the History and Actuality of the Polish Contribution, from the Lvov-Warsaw school to phenomenology, to Twentieth Century Philosophy. Colloque international bilingue portant sur l'histoire et l'actualité de la contribution polonaise, de l'école de Lvov-Varsovie à la phénoménologie, à la philosophie du vingtième siècle.