Stanisław Leśniewski developed a system of logic and foundations of mathematics that considerably differs from Russell and Whitehead’s system. The difference between these two approaches to logic is significant primarily in the case of Leśniewski’s calculus of names, Ontology, and the concept of names that it contains. Russell’s theory of descriptions played a much more important role than Leśniewski’s concept of names in the history of philosophy. In response to that, several researchers aimed to approximate Leśniewski’s concept of names to (...) Russell’s theory. There are several such attempts. This paper presents an interpretation that was suggested by Arthur Prior. Prior interpreted Leśniewskian names as class names. This interpretation was rejected by such prominent Leśniewskian scholars as Peter Simons or Rafal Urbaniak. According to Simons, class names oppose Leśniewski’s ontological views. Urbaniak claimed that Prior’s interpretation of Leśniewskian names as class names is unclear. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that from the formal point of view, Prior’s interpretation could be justified. (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)

We propose an intuitive understanding of the statement: ‘an axiom (or: an axiomatic basis) determines the meaning of the only specific constant occurring in it.’ We introduce some basic semantics for functors of the category s/n,n of Lesniewski’s Ontology. Using these results we prove that the popular claim that the axioms of Ontology determine the meaning of the primitive constants is false.

The most difficult problem that Leniewski came across in constructing his system of the foundations of mathematics was the problem of defining definitions, as he used to put it. He solved it to his satisfaction only when he had completed the formalization of his protothetic and ontology. By formalization of a deductive system one ought to understand in this context the statement, as precise and unambiguous as possible, of the conditions an expression has to satisfy if it is added to (...) the system as a new thesis. Now, some protothetical theses, and some ontological ones, included in the respective systems, happen to be definitions. In the present essay I employ Leniewski's method of terminological explanations for the purpose of formalizing ukasiewicz's system of implicational calculus of propositions, which system, without having recourse to quantification, I first extended some time ago into a functionally complete system. This I achieved by allowing for a rule of implicational definitions, which enabled me to define any propositionforming functor for any finite number of propositional arguments. (shrink)