Abstract
Russell’s antinomy of the class of normal classes, i.e., the class of those classes which are not their own elements, emerged when the current concept of class was being given more precision. It is this current concept of class which is blamed for Russell’s antinomy.
The problems to be discussed and the main theses of the present paper come from Z. Kraszewski. R. Suszko’s contribution is confined to the proposal that everyday language should be identified with the formalism of the logic of statements and the logic of terms, lind to certain suggestions concerning the arrangement of the material.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
The problems to be discussed and the main theses of the present paper come from Z. Kraszewski. R. Suszko’s contribution is confined to the proposal that everyday language should be identified with the formalism of the logic of statements and the logic of terms, and to certain suggestions concerning the arrangement of the material.
For a limited version of a formalism of the logic of terms see A. Morawiec, ‘Podstawy logiki nazw’ (Foundations of the Theory of Names), Studia Logica, XII, 1961.
It may be assumed that the argument A in K (A) is always a subjective complement (a general term). While adopting this position we also admit terms in the form of K (a), where a is a proper name (an individual term): we can consider K (a) to be an abbreviation for K (Id (a)), where Id is the relative predicate ‘identical with’; in that case the term ‘Id(a)’ is a subjective complement.
The relative terms mentioned previously are thus interpreted in a weak sense, in which a whole is its own part (fragment, component, element).
It is obvious, by virtue of (2.3), that every KN is KL and that every KNN is KL.
We have disregarded here the fourth, combinatorily possible, definition of normal and non-normal classes, namely KNN3 = KL and non-KN, KN3 = KL and non-KNN. This case seems to be totally unintuitive.
Certain examples in this paragraph have had to be modified, because the use of articles in English renders some of the original Polish formulations pointless. (Tr.)
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1979 PWN — Polish Scientific Publishers — Warszawa
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kraszewski, Z., Suszko, R. (1979). Normal and Non-Normal Classes in Current Language1. In: Pelc, J. (eds) Semiotics in Poland 1984–1969. Synthese Library, vol 119. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9777-6_25
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9777-6_25
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-009-9779-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-009-9777-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive