This article is an attempt to recreate the intuitions which accompanied Leśniewski when he was creating his calculus of names called Ontology. Although every reconstruction is to some extent an interpretation, and as such may be defective, still, there are reasons justifying such reconstruction. The most important justification is the fact that both Leśniewski and his commentators stressed that ontology originated from reflections about ordinary language, in which sentences such as A is B appear in one of the meanings associated (...) with them in Ontology, and that the users of the Polish language use such sentences accordingly and properly identify them. Assumed it is so, let us try, based on Leśniewski’s guidelines as well as comments and elaborations on Ontology, to evaluate the accuracy of this approach, referring also to certain knowledge of the Polish language. To make it clear, this article is not about Ontology as a formal theory of language. It is solely an attempt to assess whether some syntactical constructs of the Polish language and this language’s properties are significant conditions of a proper understanding of Ontology, and whether Ontology is, in fact, in a relationship with the ethnic language of its author. (shrink)

A theory of definitions which places the eliminability and conservativeness requirements on definitions is usually called the standard theory. We examine a persistent myth which credits this theory to Leśniewski, a Polish logician. After a brief survey of its origins, we show that the myth is highly dubious. First, no place in Leśniewski's published or unpublished work is known where the standard conditions are discussed. Second, Leśniewski's own logical theories allow for creative definitions. Third, Leśniewski's celebrated ‘rules of definition’ lay (...) merely syntactical restrictions on the form of definitions: they do not provide definitions with such meta-theoretical requirements as eliminability or conservativeness. On the positive side, we point out that among the Polish logicians, in the 1920s and 1930s, a study of these meta-theoretical conditions is more readily found in the works of Łukasiewicz and Ajdukiewicz. (shrink)

The article describes the background of Roman Ingarden's 1922 review of Leon Chwistek's book Wielość rzeczywistości, and the back-and-forth that followed. Despite the differences, the two shared some interesting similarities. Both authors had important ties to the intellectual happenings outside Poland and were not considerd mainstream at home. In the end, however, it is these connections that allowed them to gain recognition. Ingarden, who had been a student of Husserl, became the leading phenomenologist in the postwar Poland. For Chwistek, a (...) painter, philosopher, and logician interested in Russell’s work, such connections meant that he won the competition for a professorship at the university in Lwów over Alfred Tarski. Until recently, Chwistek’s place in Polish logic remains unclear and Ingarden’s interactions with Polish logic and the Vienna Circle have not been investigated extensively. A deeper look at this intellectual fracas between Ingarden and Chwistek helps one in the study of the complicated mesh of alliances within the Lwów-Warsaw School. The article also identifies the origins of the split between phenomenology and the analytic philosophical tradition in Poland. The article is also accompanied by the translations of the reviews. (shrink)

Ajdukiewicz’s account of mathematical theories is presented and analyzed. Theories consist of primary and secondary theorems. Theories go through three phases or stages: preaxiomatic and intuitive, axiomatic but intuitive, axiomatic and abstract, whereas the final stage takes two forms: definitional and formal. Each stage is analyzed. The role of the concepts of truth, evidence, consequence, and existence is examined. It is claimed that the second stage is apparent or transitory, whereas the initial and final stages are vital and constitute two (...) salient attitudes to mathematics, focused on truth or consequence respectively. It is also claimed they are attitudes rather than stages, and the crucial difference between them concerns effectiveness. The chief question of philosophy of mathematics turns out to be to determine whether mathematical theories are assertive or hypothetical. (shrink)

Purpose. The paper is aimed at studying the peculiarities of the Oleksandr Kulchytskyi’s doctrine of human, taking into account the context of European philosophy and especially in comparison with the paradigm of philosophizing in the Lviv-Warsaw school. The theoretical basis of the study is determined by Kulchytskyi’s scholarly works in the field of philosophy and philosophical anthropology, as well as the latest researches that reinterpret the influence of Twardowski’s theoretico-methodological ideas on the formation of the philosophical worldview of the Ukrainian (...) thinker. Originality. Based on the appeal to primary sources, Kulchytskyi’s philosophical doctrine of human in the unity of its basic principles and theoretico-practical results is reconstructed. The ways of forming the key ideas of his philosophical anthropology are determined, their originality is substantiated, despite the cooperation with Twardowski’s school, as well as despite numerous discussions and researches of Western European philosophico-anthropological, existentio-ideological and socio-psychological issues. Conclusions. It is found out how the philosophical worldview of Oleksandr Kulchytskyi was formed and how he gradually came from the research of the human psyche within the framework of anthropological structural psychology to the realization of the need to study philosophical anthropology. The personalistic features of his philosophical doctrine of human are characterized; in particular, attention is paid to the distinction between the concepts of person and personality, determining the importance of the social factor for the formation of human worldview, didactic aims of anthropological studies. It is shown how in Kulchytskyi’s philosophical anthropology the analysis of the existentio-worldview dimension of human existence, manifested in different spiritual situations and socio-cultural conditions that influence the specifics of thinking and the nature of the personality mentality, acquires special importance. The originality of Kulchytskyi’s arguments about human in the context of both Ukrainian philosophy and in general European philosophical thought is stated. (shrink)

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)

The aim of this paper is to show that it is the explicativecharacter of Tarski's semantic definition of truth given in his study of 1933 that allows forconsideration of a philosophical background of this definition in the proper sense. Given the explicativecharacter of this definition it is argued that the philosophical tradition that should be taken intoaccount with regard to this philosophical background is the tradition of the Lvov-Warsaw Schoolin its connections with the School of Brentano. As an example of (...) the explanatory power ofconsidering this tradition as far as Tarski's philosophical choices are concerned I use here thenotion of sentence-inscription, i.e., the notion of that entity of which truth is predicated inthe definition in question. One of the consequences of these statements is that philosophicaldiscussions concerning the semantic definition of truth can be regarded from two points ofview. On the one hand, they may take the perspective of its explicational function, i.e., theperspective of its philosophical background. On the other hand, they might consider the philosophicalconsequences of the definition with respect to the goal of the explication, i.e., they may considerits philosophical content independently of its historical background. (shrink)

This article presents the development of the phenomenological movement in Poland in the period 1895–1945. It focuses on the early reactions to phenomenology and the later consolidation of the group of phenomenologists in Lvov. The article also explores the context of Polish phenomenology, its main figures, and their texts. The author suggests that early phenomenology in Poland was a pluralistic discipline that developed in polemical discussions, including discussions with members of the Lvov–Warsaw school. Finally, the article summarizes the major contributions (...) of phenomenologists to philosophy, psychology, and aesthetics in Poland. (shrink)

This article is polemical. It argues with those philosophers who see, in the semantic theory of knowledge of Kazimierz Ajdukiewicz, the significant and exclusive influence of Alfred Tarski’s semantic output. Listening to these philosophers, one gets the impression that they have overlooked the fact that the term “semantics” meant one thing in the case of Ajdukiewicz, presenting the semantic theory of knowledge, and something different in the case of Tarski, presenting the semantic theory of truth. There is another difference, related (...) to the abovementioned, and fundamental in the case of both these logicians, namely their different approach to language, which seems to escape the attention of those who write about the semantic theory of knowledge. Ajdukiewicz’s approach was intensional, while Tarski’s approach was extensional: for the first of them, the intensional interpretation of language was basic, as for the second, was the extensional interpretation. The philosophers with whom I argue overlook one more fact, namely the impact, difficult to overestimate, that the intentional theory of language of Edmund Husserl had on the emergence of the semantic theory of knowledge. This article tries to restore Tarski’s real role in the matter referred to in the title, and do justice to Husserl: after all, without his philosophy of the semantic theory of knowledge, as a metaepistemological project, it would not have come to be. It was only in the implementation of this project that some of the achievements of Tarski’s semantics were used. (shrink)

Niniejszy artykuł ma polemiczny charakter. Polemizuje on z głosami tych filozofów, którzy w semantycznej teorii poznania Kazimierza Ajdukiewicza widzą znaczący i nadto wyłączny wpływ semantycznego dorobku Alfreda Tarskiego. Słuchając głosów tych filozofów można odnieść wrażenie, że przeoczyli oni fakt, iż termin „semantyka” znaczył co innego w wypadku Ajdukiewicza, prezentującego semantyczną teorię poznania, a co innego w wypadku Tarskiego, prezentującego semantyczną teorię prawdy. Z tą różnicą, dotyczącą znaczeń terminu „semantyka”, wiąże się inna, fundamentalna w wypadku obu tych logików różnica, a mianowicie (...) ich odmienne podejście do języka, co zdaje się umykać uwadze tym piszącym o semantycznej teorii poznania, z którymi zamierzam polemizować. Podejście Ajdukiewicza było intensjonalne, natomiast podejście Tarskiego – ekstensjonalne, co mówiąc mam na myśli to, że dla pierwszego z nich podstawową była intensjonalna interpretacja języka, a dla drugiego – interpretacja ekstensjonalna. Filozofowie, z którymi polemizuję, przeoczają jeszcze jeden fakt, a mianowicie trudny do przecenienia wpływ, jaki na powstanie semantycznej teorii poznania miała intencjonalna teoria języka Edmunda Husserla. Niniejszy artykuł stara się przywrócić właściwą miarę Tarskiemu w tytułowej sprawie oraz oddać sprawiedliwość Husserlowi, bez filozofii którego semantycznej teorii poznania, jako metaepistemologicznego projektu, by nie było. A przecież to ów projekt legitymizował jego realizacje i dopiero w nich były wykorzystywane niektóre osiągnięcia semantyki Tarskiego. (shrink)

The issue of the justification of the laws of logic has been under discussion since the end of the nineteenth century. However, in many works devoted to this problem Ajdukiewicz’s achievements are left unmentioned. It can be shown that in certain periods of the development of his views, he tried to present various attempts at solving the problem of the justification of the laws of logic.

The thesis of the paper holds that some future developments of argumentation theory may be inspired by the rich logico-methodological legacy of the Lvov–Warsaw School (LWS), the Polish research movement that was most active from 1895 to 1939. As a selection of ideas of the LWS which exploit both formal and pragmatic aspects of the force of argument, we present: Ajdukiewicz’s account of reasoning and inference, Bocheński’s analyses of superstitions or dogmas, and Frydman’s constructive approach to legal interpretation. This paper (...) does not aim at exhaustive elaboration of any of these topics or their usefulness in current discussions within argumentation theory. Rather, we intend to indicate chosen directions of a potentially fruitful research program for the emerging Polish School of Argumentation which would consist in application of methods and conceptions elaborated by the LWS to selected open problems of contemporary research on argumentation. (shrink)

Karol Frenkel was one of Kazimierz Twardowski’s first disciples to undertake an attempt to develop their own concept of ethics. In his case, the process of developing his own ethical concept involved questioning the tradition in which he had been educated. Accordingly, he was able to formulate an original concept of independent ethics. In his doctoral dissertation, Frenkel analyzed two ethical systems, formulated by David Hume and Arthur Schopenhauer respectively which sought ethical determinants in the affective sphere. For Frenkel, these (...) proposals turned out to be unsatisfactory, and thus he proposed his own solution derived from the accepted concept of morality. From today’s perspective, it was the first reflection in Poland referring to scientific ethics, which – chronologically speaking – in many respects preceded the analogous solutions proposed later by British analytical philosophers. (shrink)

Ludwik Borkowski’s vast knowledge of philosophy allowed him to put his logical studies in a philosophical context. As a logician, he continued the tradition of the Lvov-Warsaw school. He dealt with the basic issues of the widely understood logic as well as with those having strong philosophical implications (e.g. non-classical logics, the theory of truth, natural deduction, the theory of consequence). He also worked on the theory of definition and the intuitive interpretation of logical results. For Borkowski, logic was an (...) autonomous science whose function is supposed to be ancillary towards the other sciences. Although he did not write any typical philosophical-logical works, investigating philosophical sources, inspirations and the implications of logical results was something he did throughout the whole period of his creative activity. (shrink)

Pojęcia były zawsze jednym z najważniejszych obiektów badań filozoficznych. Szczególnie duży wkład do teorii analizy pojęć wnieśli przedstawiciele polskiej gałęzi XX-wiecznej filozofii analitycznej, czyli Szkoły Lwowsko-Warszawskiej. Badaniom filozoficznym w tej szkole przyświecał postulat jasności myślenia i mowy. Analiza i doskonalenie pojęć oraz języka filozoficznego jako ich nośnika były naturalnym wyrazem programu metodologicznego, jaki formacji tej nadał jej założyciel, Kazimierz Twardowski. W artykule przedstawiona jest procedura rekonstrukcji pojęć, stosowana powszechnie w szkole Twardowskiego. Okazuje się, że pomimo głębokich niekiedy różnic między poszczególnymi (...) przedstawicielami SLW da się wskazać pewne rysy wspólne prowadzonych w szkole badań nad pojęciami. Są to przede wszystkim moment kategorialny i moment konstrukcyjny, ze względu na który całą procedurę najlepiej określić właśnie jako „rekonstrukcję”. Bliżej zostały omówione dwa przykłady rekonstrukcji pojęć: praca Jana Łukasiewicza dotycząca pojęcia przyczyny oraz wyniki Alfreda Tarskiego dotyczące pojęcia prawdy. (shrink)

My purpose here is purely historical. It is not an attempt to resolve the question as to whether Russell did or did not countenance nonclassical logics, and if so, which nonclassical logics, and still less to demonstrate whether he himself contributed, in any manner, to the development of nonclassical logic. Rather, I want merely to explore and insofar as possible document, whether, and to what extent, if any, Russell interacted with the various, either the various candidates or their, ideas that (...) Dejnožka and others have proposed as potentially influential in Russell’s intellectual reactions to nonclassical logic or to the philosophical concepts that might contribute to his reactions to nonclassical logics. (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 ...

Inthisarticle,IreconstructKazimierzAjdukiewicz’sviewthathecalledradical conventiona‐ l i s m (as opposed to moderate conventionalism developed by Henri Poincaré and Pierre Duhem). then, I recall little‐known criticism of this approach developed by Stefan Amsterdamski. Finally, I demonstrate, contrary to the conception of the originator’s declarations, that a radical conventio‐ nalism is not a ‘paper ction’. On the other hand, the standpoint of radical conventionalism is useful due to the precision of expressions provided to it by Ajdukiewicz; it shows the di culties that have to (...) be tackled by each philosophical approach assuming a social constructivism or related notion. (shrink)

Tekst ma na celu bliższe zapoznanie Czytelnika z otwierającą cykl Aristotelica pracą doktorską Franza Brentano Von der mannigfachen Bedeutung des Seienden nach Aristoteles (1862), która znana jest głównie z tego, że miała zainspirować młodego Martina Heideggera i sprawić, że zajął się filozofią. Tekst bada naturę i siłę tej inspiracji. Część pierwsza opowiada historię powstania Von der mannigfachen … oraz przedstawia szerszy kontekst zetknięcia się Heideggera z filozofią Brentana, a także stara się przedstawić Heideggera na tle jego pozostałych uczniów (Kazimierz Twardowski, (...) Edmund Husserl, Alexius Meinong, Carl Stumpf, Anton Marty, et al.). Część druga omawia piętnaście tez o bycie, które stanowią sedno dzieła O wielorakim znaczeniu bytu u Arystotelesa i tym samym umożliwia porównanie tomistycznej w duchu ontologii Brentana z ontologią fundamentalną Heideggera, o czym traktuje część trzecia. Część trzecia stara się również zweryfikować faktyczną wysokość „długu”, jaki Heidegger miał u Brentana zaciągnąć i odpowiedzieć na pytanie, do jakiego stopnia, o ile w ogóle, Martina Heideggera możemy nazwać „brentanistą”. (shrink)

In British and American anthropological literature, the ethnology of Central and Eastern European countries has shared in the plight of descriptions of this part of the world: it was seen as exotic, foreign, remote, a backwater, focused on sideline problems and situated on the periphery of this field of science. This state of affairs has been the case since at least the beginning of the Cold War as the descriptions of the national characters of Eastern Bloc communities, drafted by American (...) scholars. The ethnography of these countries was automatically aligned with the same categories of description which were applied to the characteristics of these communities. This was, in part, an effect of entirely different research traditions in the subject matter, objectives and methods of these remote parts of the science. The differences of ’cultural wholes’ did have a decisive impact on the image of ethnology. Like all these communities, Polish ethnology was perceived as a homogeneous whole, which it never was. (shrink)

Meontology of Gorgias vs. Nihilism. The purpose of this paper is to challenge Gorgias’ image of a “nihilist existentialist”. The original thesis ouden estin, too frequently rendered as „nothing exists”, thus reducing the verb “to be” to denote “bare” existence, and ouden to denote “nothingness”. On close inspection, it turns out that, in Gorgias, neither do we have a negation of reality nor an affirmative treatment of the word “nothingness”.Therefore, ouden” should not be understood as a negation of all reality (...) or a kind of affirmative “nothingness”, whereas “estin” should not be reduced to “bare” existence. (When existence is negated what we obtain is annihilation). Such practices still affect the various translations of Gorgias’ treaty On the non-being or on Nature. Gorgias’ “sophist” thought is typically interpreted as a joke or a parody of dialectical thinking of the Eleatics. In fact, as it turns out, he made no parody of dialectic but applied the elenctic, apagogic method in Zeno’s masterly manner. He did so not for an artificial purpose but to prove the absurdity of the hypothesis of absolute, transcendent (hence incognizable) one Truth-Being, which eliminates the non-being of becoming as absolute non-being. Gorgias argued in earnest in favour of relative being as such, Becoming as the only reality, which from the point of view of absolute being is after all non-being, but not-this-being, or relative non-being but not non-relative non-being, as the Eleatics had claimed. Gorgias’ positions appears to be an apologia of non-being which is, that is of Becoming. We do not transform the “nothing” into a “no thing”. The main question of the treaty is: what is predicated by the word “nothing”? Gorgias’ position can be recapitulated as “nothing is sc. true, there is no criterion because, after all, everything is opinion. It is reinforced further by meontological, i.e. anti-eleatic Gorgias’ emphasis: “No thing is Being (substance)”, because everything is Becoming. Thus the title if Gorgias’ treaty can thus be treated as as an antithesis to that of Melissos’, which – in our opinion – is to emphasize the “non-beingness” of nature, the non-substantiality of things. Therefore, if Gorgias’ text was polemical, and it questioned (while at the same time maintaining the positivity of Becoming as non-being) only the immutability of things, and thus we cannot speak of the existence or the cognizability of natures or of essences of things. In sum, the reasoning of Zeno and Melissos was of a kind that is apt to cut both ways, and that is what Gorgias showed. The argument given as peculiar to himself was to this effect. “What is not” is not, so, it is just as much as “what is”. It is as if the onset of the issues that Plato will take up in The Sophist as the problem of non-being understood as difference. The axis of Gorgias’s anti-eleatic critique, in our view, is his polemic with Parmenides’ famous thesis B3 regarding the relationship of identity or equality between noein and einai. It is an additional and perhaps the most important point of his critique that aims at demonstrating that such relationship is impossible. In brief, things are not words just as thoughts are not words. (shrink)

The paper depicts the evolution of the conception of the method of analytical description of Czeżowski, one of the most important figures of the Lvov-Warsaw School of Philosophy. It portrays Czeżowski as an author, whose voice on relation between theory and experience, as well as language and empirical reality, can be still considered important and significant. Generally speaking, Czeżowski distinguishes between two kinds of methods: the inductive ones and the no inductive, i.e. the method of analytic description. The results of (...) the former are the base of every further scientific activity, from the empirical sciences to philosophy. The method serves, first of all, to define abstract concepts and to precise scientific terms, what allow next to set and to express relations between them. Its application is an indispensable and essential part of process of building every abstract scientific theory. Despite some similarities between Czeżowski’s method and other methods of conceptual analysis, the former is not subjected to the paradox of analysis, according to the author of the paper. (shrink)

The paper depicts the evolution of the conception of the method of analytical description of Czeżowski, one of the most important figures of the Lvov-Warsaw School of Philosophy. It portrays Czeżowski as an author, whose voice on relation between theory and experience, as well as language and empirical reality, can be still considered important and significant. Generally speaking, Czeżowski distinguishes between two kinds of methods: the inductive ones and the no inductive, i.e. the method of analytic description. The results of (...) the former are the base of every further scientific activity, from the empirical sciences to philosophy. The method serves, first of all, to define abstract concepts and to precise scientific terms, what allow next to set and to express relations between them. Its application is an indispensable and essential part of process of building every abstract scientific theory. Despite some similarities between Czeżowski’s method and other methods of conceptual analysis, the former is not subjected to the paradox of analysis, according to the author of the paper. (shrink)

The article is mainly based on Tadeusz Czeżowski’s publication – “Metaethical considerations”, prepared to be printed but never published. This publication, however, is not a handbook of classical metaethics but a kind of generalization of ethical theories ordering in a way, all known until now ethical systems within philosophy. Thus, Czeżowski does not offer his metaethics as a section of traditional ethics but also as a kind of generalization of all ethics until now, and therefore, all systems worked out within (...) itself. In its essence “Metaethical considerations” is the concept of scientific ethics, regardless of anything that does not pass verification, subject of which are e.g. empirical science research results. (shrink)