Skip to content

Leśniewski, Stanisław and Polish Mereology


Jan Woleński


Pages 287 - 293



Due to Stanisław Leśniewski and his influence, mereology became one of the main specialties of the Polish School of Logic. For Leśniewski mereology was the third and last part of the system of foundations of mathematics, a kind of grand logic, next to protothetic (extended propositional calculus) and ontology (the calculus of names, in particular, the theory of the copula ‘is’). However, the historical order of the origin of particular parts of Leśniewski’s system was just the reverse. He first constructed mereology in 1914 – 1916 and then supplemented it by ontology and protothetic in the early 1920s (see Luschei 1962, Rickey 1977, Miéville 1984, Woleński 1989, Chapter VII and Gessler 2005 for historical and other details). Leśniewski’s mereology was motivated by the Russell paradox of the set of all sets which are not members of themselves. He learned about this antinomy from a book by Jan Łukasiewicz on the principle of contradiction in Aristotle and decided to look for a solution. Leśniewski came to the conclusion that the concept of set used by Russell and other mathematicians should be replaced by the mereological notion of class (in the following I will use the term ‘set’ in the context of the standard set-theory, but the name ‘class’ in the context of mereology in most cases). Although Russell’s paradox determined the main motivation, one should also remember that Leśniewski studied with Twardowski (who was his PhD supervisor) and knew Husserl very well (he planned to translate Logische Untersuchungen into Polish, but later abandoned this project). Since recent historical investigations discovered mereological elements in the Brentano school (including early phenomenology), it is plausible to speculate that Leśniewski’s mereology was also influenced by this radition, at least indirectly. Unfortunately, the connection cannot be documented—although Leśniewski noted many times his links with Austrian philosophy and phenomenology, his remarks do not concern mereology.




1Department of Social Sciences, University of Information, Technology and Management at Rzeszow



1 Clay, R. (unpublished), Leśniewski’s Mereology.

2 Eberle, R., (1970), Nominalistic Systems, Dordrecht: Reidel.

3 Gessler, N., (2005) „ La méréologie, Neuchâtel: Université de Neuchâtel.

4 Glibowski, E., (1969), “The Leśniewski, S., 1992, Collected Works, v. I-II, ed. by S. Surma, J. Application of Mereology to Grounding of Elementary Geometry”, Studia Logica 24: 109-129.

5 Gorzka, C., (2003), Mereologia a topologia i geometria bezpunktowa (Mereology, Topology and Geometry without Points), Wydawnciwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, Toruń.

6 Grzegorczyk, A., (1955), “The Systems of Leśniewski in Relation to Contemporary Logical Research,”, Studia Logica 3: 77-95.

7 Hintze, H., (1998), Nominalismus. Primat der ersten Substanz versus Ontologie der Prädikation, München: Alber.

8 Kotarbiński, T., (1929)/1966, Gnosiology. The Scientific Approach to Theory of Knowledge, Oxford: Pergamon Press.

9 Kubiński, T., (1971), “A Report on Investigations Concerning Mereology”, Prace Filozoficzne 8: 47-68.

10 Küng, G., (1967), Ontology and the Logistic Analysis of Language, Dordrecht: Reidel.

11 Leśniewski, S., (1914)/1992, “Is the Class of Classes not Subordinated to Themselves Subordinated to Itself”, in Leśniewski 1992: 115-128.

12 Leśniewski, S., (1916)/1992, The Foundations of General Set Theory, in Leśniewski 1992: 129-173.

13 Leśniewski, S., (1927)-1931/1992, “On the Foundations of Mathematics”, in Leśniewski 1992: 174-382

14 Leśniewski, S., (1992), Collected Works, v. I-II, ed. by S. Surma, J. Srzednicki, D. Barnett and V. Rickey, Dordrecht: Kluwer.

15 Libardi, M., (1990), Teorie delle parti e dell’intero. Mereologie estensionali, Trento: Centro per la Filosofia Mitteleuropea.

16 Luschei, E., (1962), The Logical Systems of Leśniewski, Amsterdam: North-Holland.

17 Miéville, D., (1984), Un développemnt des systems logiques de Stanislaw Leśniewski. Prtothétique – Ontologie – Méréologie, Bern: Peter Lang.

18 Pietruszczak, A., (2000), Metamereologia [=Metamereology], Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, Torun.

19 Rickey, V., (1977), “A Survey of Leśniewski’s Logic”, Studia Logica 36: 407-426.

20 Ridder, L., (2001), Mereologie, Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.

21 Simons, P., (1987), Parts. A Study in Ontology, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

22 Tarski, A., (1929/1956), “On the Geometry of Solids”, in Tarski 1956: 24-29.

23 Tarski, A., (1935/1956), “On the Foundations of Boolean Algebras”, in Tarski 1956: 320-341.

24 Tarski, A., (1956), Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics. Papers from 1923 to 1938, Oxford: Clarendon Press; 2nd ed., Hackett, Indianapolis 1984.

25 Srzednicki, J.; Rickey, F.; Czelakowski, J. (eds.), (1984), Leśniewski’s Systems: Ontology and Mereology, The Hague: Nijhoff.

26 Woodger, J., (1937), The Axiomatic Method in Biology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

27 Woleński, J., (1989), Logic and Philosophy in the Lvov-Warsaw School, Dordrecht: Kluwer.

28 Woleński, J. (ed.), 1990, Kotarbiński: Logic, Semantics and Ontology, Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Share


Export Citation