Stanisław Leśniewski

Stanisław Leśniewski (born March 30, 1886, Serpukhov, Russia—died May 13, 1939, Warsaw) was a Polish logician and mathematician who was a co-founder and leading representative of the Warsaw school of logic.

Life

Leśniewski was the son of one of the civil engineers chiefly responsible for the construction and supervision of the trans-Siberian railroad. After preliminary schooling in Russia and the Gymnasium in Siberia, he attended—as was the custom of the time—several universities in continental Europe, finally taking his doctoral degree in 1912 at the Polish University of Lwów (now Lviv, Ukraine), then a part of Austria. His dissertation was approved by Kazimierz Twardowski, who, for his wide-ranging influence on Polish intellectual life, is known as the father of contemporary Polish philosophy. Twardowski, like Edmund Husserl (the founder of Phenomenology), was a student in Vienna of Franz Brentano, an Aristotelian and Scholastic philosopher who, although not himself interested in formal logic, was noted for his precise and thorough analysis of philosophical problems. Under his influence, Leśniewski’s first scholarly interests focussed upon problems of philosophical logic, such as those that had concerned John Stuart Mill in 19th-century England and Husserl and others of the Austrian school. Thus, his doctoral dissertation of 1911 dealt with the analysis of existential propositions.

The intellectual activity of Leśniewski divides into three distinct periods. The first extends from his dissertation to the appearance in 1916 of his first work on the theory of collective sets. Leśniewski attributed the discovery of his true intellectual vocation to the influence of Jan Łukasiewicz, also a pupil of Twardowski and then a privat dozent at the University of Lwów. Already learned in the history of logic, to which he was to make outstanding contributions, Łukasiewicz was at the time studying the work of the German logicians Gottlob Frege and Ernst Schröder, the importance of which he was mainly responsible for making known in Poland, and teaching his first course in mathematical logic. It was Łukasiewicz’ book O Zasadzie Sprzeczności u Arystotelesa (1910; “On the Principle of Contradiction in Aristotle”) that awakened Leśniewski from his dogmatic slumber. From it he became interested in the problem posed by the discovery of the antinomies, or paradoxes, in logic and mathematics that threatened to undermine the foundations of all deductive science. His efforts to overcome and solve these antinomies, with which Frege and Bertrand Russell were also wrestling, eventually led to the great discoveries for which he is known.

Discover the fascinating events that shaped the world, straight from our editors.

SIGN UP

By clicking “Sign Up”, you consent to the Britannica Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Britannica Quiz

Philosophy 101

Although Leśniewski then definitely turned his back on philosophy in favour of logic—he later spoke of himself as a renegade from philosophy—his initial impression of mathematical logic was not at all favourable. He distrusted its technical formal notation, the scant attention given to its relation to ordinary language, and the resulting equivocations in the use of such terms as class, implies, and true. In attempting to clear away the equivocations in the work of Russell, however, he soon became convinced that the formal and artificial language of mathematical logic was essential for his work, that ordinary language was too clumsy and imprecise. The writings of this period were completed, however, before he had adopted the rigorous methods of mathematical logic and were all later repudiated by him.

The period from 1916 to 1927 was one of intensive and creative research in which he accumulated a mass of results but refrained from publishing them. In 1915, upon the reopening of the University of Warsaw, Łukasiewicz had been called from Lwów to become professor of philosophy. Leśniewski, after teaching for two years at a Warsaw Gymnasium and spending the war years in Moscow, followed his friend and colleague to Warsaw in 1919 as professor of the philosophy of mathematics. They soon established a thriving centre of research that attracted talented students from all sides.

Leśniewski finally felt constrained to start publishing some account of his findings, even though they were not yet in as perfect a form as he would have desired. Beginning with the publication, in 1927, of his first mature work on the foundations of mathematics and extending until his death, in 1939, he published a series of papers expounding the main lines of his theories of logic and mathematics. These publications gained a worldwide reputation for the Warsaw school. Yet, just as it was reaching its height, Leśniewski died suddenly and unexpectedly on the eve of the war that shortly engulfed the school in the common fate of Poland.

Many of Leśniewski’s findings remained unpublished at his death. Although all of his manuscripts were destroyed by the war, many of the unpublished results of his researches have since been made known through the work of his students, particulary that of Bolesław Sobociński and Alfred Tarski.

Explore Britannica Premium!

The trusted destination for professionals, college students, and lifelong learners.

SUBSCRIBE

Major work in logic

The distinctive and original contribution of Leśniewski consists in the construction of three interrelated logical systems, to which he gave the names, derived from the Greek, of protothetic, ontology, and mereology (q.v.). The logical basis of the whole theory, and hence its name (prōtos, “first”), is provided by protothetic, which is the most comprehensive theory yet developed of the relations between propositions. The other two systems are based on a distinction the lack of which, Leśniewski claimed, was the source of Russell’s difficulties with the antinomies: that between a distributive and a collective class. In its distributive use, a class expression is identical with a general name; thus, to say that a person belongs to the class of Poles is to say that that person is a Pole. Hence, ontology (on, “being”) is the logic of names; and, combined with protothetic, it yields all of the theorems of syllogistic (traditional Aristotelian logic) and of logical algebra, as well as of the logic of sets and relations. Mereology (meros, “part”) is the logic of a whole conceived as though physically constituted by its parts—i.e., of the collective class, as the class of all automobiles in Chicago consists of the entire collection of them. Hence, mereology is a general theory of the relation between part and whole.

In developing these theories, Leśniewski gave great care to the statement of their metalogic and, for this purpose, elaborated a general theory of semantic categories, which is analogous, on the one hand, to the traditional doctrine of the parts of speech and, on the other, to Husserl’s “meaning categories.”

Leśniewski developed his logical systems with a clarity and precision that established a new standard for mathematical rigour. In their powers of implication, they are strong enough to provide a logical foundation for all of classical mathematics. They also overcome the antinomies in a way that Leśniewski claimed is better and truer than any other solution. In his opinion, modern mathematicians and logicians are often too neglectful, if not contemptuous, of humanity’s naive and basic intuitions of the way things are. For this very reason, Alfred Tarski, one of his students who later went to the United States, described his position as “an intuitive formalism.” Leśniewski was openly critical of a pure formalism that would consider logic and mathematics as nothing more than a game of symbols. It is true that he advocated and employed formalist methods for their rigour and precision, but he maintained that a theory ultimately must be judged for its accord with reality. Nevertheless, Leśniewski maintained that his logical systems are neutral in that they make no metaphysical assumptions and are equally well adapted to diverse and even conflicting philosophical interpretations.