Kordula Świętorzecka

The paper shows that it is possible to obtain a "slingshot" result in Gödel's theory of positiveness in the presence of the theorem of the necessary existence of God. In the context of the reconstruction of Gödel's original "slingshot" argument on the suppositions of non-Fregean logic, this is a natural result. The "slingshot" result occurs in sufficiently strong non-Fregean theories accepting the necessary existence of some entities. However, this feature of a Gödelian theory may be considered not as a trivialisation, but as an intended consequence of Gödel's ontotheological views.

There are proposed two simple formal descriptions of the notion of God’s omnipotence which are inspired by formalizations of C. Christian and E. Nieznański. Our first proposal is expressed in a modal sentential language with quantifires. The second one is formulated in first order predicate language. In frame of the second aproach we admit using self-referential expressions. In effect we link our considerations with so called paradox of God’s omnipotence and reconstruct some argumentation against the possibility of reference God’s omnipotence to a lack of itself

The intention of the presented paper is to establish within a certain modal semantic based on the situational ontology a description of the phenomenon of substantial change, which originally had been formulated within Aristotelian metaphysics – a theory based in reistic ontology. We understand substantial changesto be such changes whose subjects are primary substances (πρωται ουσι αι ) conceived as actually existing individual essences. The analysed changeability is of an existential character - it pertains to the existence of those substances. The formalised description of the chosen changes, constructed in part (1) of the study, takes into consideration the necessary condition for their occurrence: the disappearing and coming into being of successively becoming substances. Part (2) presents the manner in which it is possible to reformulate the obtained characteristic of substantial change in order to create a description of a particular variety of situational changes, which belong, in turn, to the intended interpretation of modal sentential logic of change LCG - a calculus in which change is a primitive concept precised with the help of two one-argument operators C and G, read respectively as: it changes that…, a change is enabled by this, that …..

To sentential language we add an operator C to be read as ‘it changes that…’ and present an axiomatic system in the frame of classical logic to catch some meaning of the term ‘change’. A typical axiom is e.g.: CA implies, a basic rule is: from A it may be inferred (theorems do not change). So this system is not regular. On the semantic level we introduce stages (of the development of some world, of some agents’ convictions or of some argumentation) at which a sentence may be true or false. It turns out that with the help of C, an operator N can be defined whose intuitive meaning is ‘on the next occasion…’ and which behaves like A.N. Prior’s F (and also like the T operator of G.H. von Wright’s read ‘… and next…’). In a book by Świetorzecka (2008) cited below, the philosophical background is described which is the Aristotelian theory of substantial change. The author of this book shows also some metalogical properties of this logic. The aim of this text now is to present a formal extraction of Świetorzecka (2008) with a shortened axiomatisation and to describe some metalogical results.

The topic of our analysis is the argument for the existence of substances given by Bernard Bolzano in Athanasia, where he essentially employs two ontological categories: substance and adherence. Bolzano considers the real and conditioned Inbegriff of all adherences, which are wirklich and nicht selbst bestehen. He claims that the formed collection is dependent on something external and non-adherential, which therefore is a substance. Bolzano’s argumentation turns out to be structurally similar to his argument for the existence of God from Lehrbuch der Religionswissenschaft, but in each of these reasonings, we find different plausible interpretations of the key concept “Inbegriff”. The latter argumentation refers to the mereological totality of existentially conditioned objects. We propose the explication of the Bolzanian Inbegriff of all adherences using two types of predication: we consider its extension as composed of certain intensional counterparts of adherences. In our approach, we use a fragment of the theory of abstract objects formulated by E. Zalta, describing two different relations between individuals and properties: extensional exemplification and intensional encoding. We put our reconstruction in a wider context of Bolzano’s ontology, formulating the needed axioms with two primitive predicates of second order... is an adherence,... is conditioned by something real as well as the conditionally introduced first order predicate constant \ for Inbegriff of all adherential ideas. Finally, we sketch a model for our theory.

In Formale Logik, published in 1956, J. M. Bocheński presented his first proposal for the solution to the liar paradox, which he related to Paul of Venice's argumentation from Logica Magna. A formalized version of this solution was then presented in Formalisierung einer scholastischen Lösung der Paradoxie des ‘Lügners’ in 1959. The historical references of the resulting formalism turn out to be closer to Albert de Saxon's argument and the later solution by John Buridan. Bocheński did not pose the question of the consistency of his theory. The case was taken up by B. Sobociński in his private letter to Bocheński from 12 August 1954. Sobociński used a smart translation of the language of Bocheński's theory into the classical propositional language with the notions of truth and falsehood inverted. The translation preserves the structure of the formalized solution. We explore Sobociński's idea and reconstruct his original proof.

Our research concerns a formal representation of Bolzano’s original concepts of Substanz and Adhärenz. The formalized intensional theory enables to articulate a question about the consistency of a part of Bolzano’s metaphysics and to suggest an answer to it in terms of contemporary model theory. The formalism is built as an extension of Zalta’s theory of abstract objects, describing two types of predication, viz. attribution and representation. Bolzano was aware about this distinction. We focus on the consistency of this formalism and the description of its semantics. Firstly, we explore the possibility to reconstruct a Russellian antinomy based on the concept of the Bolzano’s Inbegriff of all adherences. Our aim is to show limitations of his theory that prevent a contradiction when the Inbegriff consists of non-self-referential adherences. Next, we discuss two competing semantics for the proposed theory: Scott’s and Aczel’s semantics. The first one yields a problematic result, that there are no models for the considered theory, containing a non-empty collection of all adherences. This is due to the fact that Scott’s structures verify the formula on reloading abstracts in extensional contexts. We show that Aczel’s semantics does not contain this difficulty. There are described Aczel’s models with a non-empty set of all adherences. The self-referentiality of such a collection becomes irrelevant here. Finally, we show that there are Aczel’s structures verifying the formula on reloading abstracts and we exclude them from the class of models intended for our theory.

The so-called Principle of Plenitude was ascribed to Leibniz by A. O. Lovejoy in The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of an Idea. Its temporal version states that what holds always, holds necessarily. This temporal formulation is the subject of the current paper. Lovejoy’s idea was criticised by Hintikka. The latter supported his criticisms by referring to specific Leibnizian notions of absolute and hypothetical necessities interpreted in a possible-worlds semantics. In the paper, Hintikka’s interpretative suggestions are developed and enriched with a temporal component that is present in the characteristics of the real world given by Leibniz. We use in our approach the Leibnizian idea that change is primary to time and the idea that there are possible laws that characterize worlds other than the real one. We formulate a modal propositional logic with three primitive operators for change, temporal constancy, and possible lawlikeness. We give its axiomatics and show that our logic is complete with respect to the given semantics of possible worlds. Finally, we show that the counterparts of the considered versions of the Principle of Plenitude are falsified in this semantics and the same applies to the counterpart of Leibnizian necessarianism.

We present a study of unpublished fragments of Jan F. Drewnowski’s manuscript from the years 1922–1928, which contains his own axiomatics for mereology. The sources are transcribed and two versions of mereology are reconstructed from them. The first one is given by Drewnowski. The second comes from Leśniewski and was known to Drewnowski from Leśniewski’s lectures. Drewnowski’s version is expressed in the language of ontology enriched with the primitive concept of a (proper) part, and its key axiom expresses the so-called weak super-supplementation principle, which was named by Drewnowski “the postulate of the existence of subtractions”. Leśniewski’s axiomatics with the primitive concept of an ingrediens contains the axiom expressing the strong super-supplementation principle. In both systems the collective class of objects from the range of a given non-empty concept is defined as the upper bound of that range. From a historical point of view it is interesting to notice that the presented version of Leśniewski’s axiomatics has not been published yet. The same applies to Drewnowski’s approach. We reconstruct the proof of the equivalence of these two systems. Finally, we discuss questions stemming from their equivalence in frame of elementary mereology formulated in a modern way.

We present the first-order logic of change, which is an extension of the propositional logic of change $\textsf {LC}\Box $ developed and axiomatized by Świętorzecka and Czermak. $\textsf {LC}\Box $ has two primitive operators: ${\mathcal {C}}$ to be read it changes whether and $\Box $ for constant unchangeability. It implements the philosophically grounded idea that with the help of the primary concept of change it is possible to define the concept of time. One of the characteristic axioms for ${\mathcal {C}}$ is ${\mathcal {C}} A \to {\mathcal {C}}\neg A$ and one of the primitive rules is $\omega $-rule introducing $\Box $. It turns out that the next operator is definable in $\textsf {LC}\Box $. Logic $\textsf {LC}\Box $ with next is equivalent to certain fragment of $\textsf {LTL}$ extended by the appropriate definition of ${\mathcal {C}}$. Recently, $\textsf {LC}\Box $ has also been modified to the propositional logic of ‘branching’ changes $\textsf {BTC}$ by Łyczak and the logic of ‘parallel’ changes $\textsf {LC}\Box $ ↳ by Świętorzecka and Łyczak. Extended in an appropriate manner, $\textsf {BTC}$ is equivalent to a certain fragment of logic $\textsf {CTL}$ to which definitions of two kinds of changes have been added. Here we propose an extension of $\textsf {LC}\Box $ to first-order logic in which, again, the only primitive modal operators are ${\mathcal {C}}$ and $\Box $. We interpret our logic in the semantics of histories of changes. We give an axiomatic system $\textsf {LC}\Box Q$ for the considered logic, and we show selected theses about some relationships between ${\mathcal {C}}$, $\Box $ and $\forall $. Then we prove the completeness of $\textsf {LC}\Box Q$. Finally, we compare our logic with $\textsf {FOLT}$ and show the relation between $\textsf {LC}\Box Q$ and a certain fragment of the Kröger system $\varSigma $ to which the definition of ${\mathcal {C}}$ was added.

Jan Franciszek Drewnowski był filozofem zaliczanym do środowiska szkoły lwowsko-warszawskiej, współtwórcą koła krakowskiego, oficerem wojska polskiego, pracownikiem wydawnictw technicznych. Drewnowski doktoryzował się u T. Kotarbińskiego, jego niedoścignionym mistrzem był Stanisław Leśniewski. Był jednym z pierwszych słuchaczy akademickich wykładów Leśniewskiego. Studiował na Wydziale Filozoficznym Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego: matematykę, logikę matematyczną i – jak to wtedy nazywano – filozofię naukową. Tam właśnie spotkał ks. Jana Salamuchę, który zaimponował Drewnowskiemu naukową erudycją, a intelektualną uczciwością skierował go od ateizmu ku katolickiej mistyce. W ten sposób Drewnowski wpisał się w grono intelektualnych konwertytów XX wieku, co ma znaczenie także dla jego dorobku.

The present paper proposes a comparative analysis of two standpoints on the existence and nature of universals hold by Stanisław Leśniewski and Bolesław Sobociński. We consider first the nominalistic argumentation of Leśniewski formalized by Sobocińki and described in the correspondence with J. M. Bocheński in 1956. Sobociński’s formalization revealed a fundamental pragmatic weakness of the reconstructed argumentation which was also mentioned by Sobociński. He himself was aware of the difficulties connected with an adequate interpretation of the crucial axiom, whose acceptance Leśniewski imputed to supporters of all theories of universals. Finally, the problem of the existence and nature of universals was elaborated by Sobociński also in a separate typescript “Uwagi w sprawie powszechników”. The view formulated by Sobociński comes from a combination of the methodology of deductive systems and the conceptualist standpoint. From the philosophical perspective Sobociński’s idea is both interesting and original, but it remained unknown to philosophers and logicians in general. For these reason we describe it and compare it with Leśniewski’s approach. We use in this description epistemological notions of R. Suszko. Our analysis enables to speak about universals in sense of Leśniewski, which are described by some universal in sense of Sobociński.

The subject of the presented work is the analysis of situations changeability in frame of constructed logic LCG. In the suggested interpretation, substantial change ( substantial movement ), which consists of the disappearing of a certain substance a 1 and the coming into being of substance a 2 , for which a 1 is an active potentia , is understood in the following manner - the elementary fact: essence a 1 exists becomes fiction and a new fact arises: essence a 2 exists , which is enabled by the previous one. In the language of our formalisation this "transition" from fact to fiction, which occurs in the case of the situation: essence a 1 exists , described as C-change . The second component of substantial movement (or rather its situational equivalent) is the occurring of a new fact: essence a 2 exists , which is possible under the condition of an earlier occurring of the fact: essence a 1 exists . We describe this aspect of movement as G-change , which is an expansion of a set of formulas by a new elementary sentence and expressions in which this sentence occurs. Within the range of the LCG calculus operators C and G obtain an interpretation wider than the one which can be determined upon the basis of the Aristotelian theory of change expressed in terms of situational ontology. Semantical and syntactical characteristics of the LCG logic gives the possibility to compare it with such known calculi of changes like sentential systems of von Wright, Clifford and Wajszczyk

The here presented biography of Bolesław Sobociński describes the history of his life, his patriotic activity and scientific results. Sobociński, as a pupil of Jan Łukasiewicz and Stanisław Leśniewski, was one of the main representatives of the second generation of the Lvov-Warsaw School, a member of the Warsaw School of Logic. He is known as the most influential popularizer of Leśniewski’s systems of prothotetics, ontology and mereology, on the international stage, as well as the author of many important results in symbolic logic: many-valued logics, modal logics, as well in set theory and theory of algebras. The international community of logicians knows Sobociński as the creator and, for many years, editor of the prestigious scientific periodical Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic. The material is divided in the following parts: Life, National service, Academic career, Interests and achievements, Sobociński presonally, Selected publications by Bolesław Sobociński.

The presented paper takes up the attempt to analyse and specify the suspicion that some modal rules of inference are paralogical in application to non-logical reasonings (s.c. modal fallacy). The considerations have been limited to modal prepositional calculi: K and S5, which are intended to be a formal base of these non-logical reasonings - proofs of so called specific thesis on the grounds of the particular specific theories. Pointing out the properties of being permitted, being valid and being derivable in case of inferences rules and also semantical relations of point, structure, frame and inferential consequence in standard semantics of possible worlds, enables to define two kinds of paralogism: point and structural. Justification of the suspicion of modal fallacy occurrence in the case of a given inference rule, depends on pointed metalogical properties of this rule and also on what kind of the notion of paralogism is being discussed. It appears that when a given rule is paralogical only pointly (and not structurally), the sufficient condition of avoiding modal fallacy is to consider the specific axioms of the given specific theory as the sentences which are structurally true (structural truth is of course not equivalent to logical truth). If we want to treat these axioms as sentences which are pointly true, we have to eliminate pointly paralogical rules. In this case it is enough to construct such axiomatisation of calculi K and S5, in which we use the notion of modal closure (it eliminates the primitive rule of Goedel and all rules derivable from it - rules which are structurally but not pointly correct)