From the History of Leśniewski's Mereology

• Autorzy: Andrzej Pietruszczak
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

In this paper, we want to present the genesis of Stanisław Leśniewski's mereology. Al- though 'mereology' comes from the word 'part', mereology arose as a theory of collective classes. That is why we present the differences between the concepts of being a distribu- tive 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 Leśniewski's considerations concerned collective classes.(original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Crime

PL

Przestępczość

• Czasopismo: Studia Humana
• Rocznik: 2024
• Tom: 13(1)
• Strony: 5--16

Twórcy

autor

Andrzej Pietruszczak

• Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń

Bibliografia

• Borkowski, L. (1977). Logika formalna (Formal Logic). 2nd Edition. Warszawa: PWN.
• Leśniewski, S. (1916). Podstawy ogólnej teoryi mnogości I (Foundations of the general theory of sets I). Moskwa: Prace Polskiego Koła Naukowego.
• Leśniewski, S. (1927). O podstawach matematyki 1 (On the foundations of mathematics 1). Przegląd Filozoficzny, 30, 164-206.
• Leśniewski, S. (1928). O podstawach matematyki 2 (On the foundations of mathematics 2). Przegląd Filozoficzny, 31, 261-291.
• Leśniewski, S. (1929). O podstawach matematyki 3 (On the foundations of mathematics 3). Przegląd Filozoficzny, 32, 60-101.
• Leśniewski, S. (1930). O podstawach matematyki 4 (On the foundations of mathematics 4). Przegląd Filozoficzny, 33, 7-105.
• Leśniewski, S. (1931). O podstawach matematyki 5 (On the foundations of mathematics 5). Przegląd Filozoficzny, 34, 142-170.
• Leśniewski, S. (1991). Collected Works. Vol. I. S. Surma, J. Srzednicki, D. Barnett, V. Rickey (eds.). Dordrecht, Boston, London: Nijhoff International Philosophy, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Murawski, R. (1984). G. Cantora filozofia teorii mnogości (Cantor's philosophy of set theory). Studia Filozoficzne, 11-12, 75-88.
• Pietruszczak, A. (2018). Metamereology. Toruń: The Nicolaus Copernicus University Publishing House. http://doi.org/10.12775/3961-4
• Quine, W. V. O., (1953). From a Logical Point of View. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press.
• Quine, W. V. O. (1981/1951). Mathematical Logic. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press.
• Quine, W. V. O. (1987). Quiddities: An Intermittently Philosophical Dictionary. Harvard University Press.
• Russell, B. (1919). Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy. London: George Allen & Unwin, Ltd.
• Słupecki, J., & Borkowski, L. (1967). Elements of Mathematical Logic and Set Theory. Oxford and Warsaw: Pergamon Press and PWN.
• Wang, H. (1994). What is logic? Monist, 77(3), 261-277.
• Whitehead, A. N. (1929). Process and Reality. New York: Macmillan.
• Whitehead, A. N., & Russell, B. (1910-1913). Principia Mathematica. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.2478/sh-2024-0002