Metody budowy pojęcia zbioru w problemie interpretacji tez Hui Shi

Main Article Content

Sławomir Sikora


The article presents an alternative conception of the problem of interpretation of the shortest and also most enigmatical text of Chinese philosophy, i.e. the ten theses of Hui Shi. Leśniewski claimed that the source of Russell’s dif-ficulties with antinomies is related to a lack of dis-tinction between a distributive and a collective class. Mereology is the logic of a certain concrete whole constituted by the parthood relations of a collective class. The use of Leśniewski’s formal solutions in the analysis of thesis (8) of Shi Hui: Linked rings can be disconnected, shows that in Chinese philosophical discourse two kinds of set theory were applied: distributive and collective. This is confirmed by thesis (5): When it is said that things greatly alike are different from things a lit-tle alike, this is what is called making little of agreements and differences; (when it is said that) all things are entirely alike or entirely different, this is what is called making much of agreements and differences. Therefore the hypothesis seems plausible that the paradox of Hui Shi’s theses was the result of a dual-istic formulation of the world order: on the one hand by the distributive order of distinguishing things by their names, on the other by the collective order of embracing all things within the frame of a common Universe.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Jak cytować
Sikora, S. (2010). Metody budowy pojęcia zbioru w problemie interpretacji tez Hui Shi. Investigationes Linguisticae, 22, 115-138.


  1. Anellis, I.H. 1991. Perspectives on the History of Mathematical Logic. w: Drucker T., "The first Russell paradox," Cambridge, Mass.: Birkäuser Boston. pp. 33–46.
  2. Cantor, G. 1883. Pojęcie zbioru, w: Murawski, R. 1986.
  3. Cantor, G. 1887. O pozaskończoności, w: Murawski, R. 1986.
  4. Casati R. and Varzi A. C. 1999. Parts and Places: The Structures of Spatial Representation, Cambridge (MA), MIT Press
  5. Chmielewski, J. 1981. Zasada redukcji do absurdu na tle porównawczym, w: Studia Semiotyczne XI, s. 121-106.
  6. Chmielewski, J. 2009. Language and logic in ancient China: collected papers on the Chinese language and logic, ed. by Marek Mejor; Polska Akademia Nauk. Komitet Nauk Orientalistycznych.
  7. Clay, R.E. 1975. Single axioms for atomistic and atomless mereology, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, XVI.
  8. Czuang – Tsy. 1953. Nan Hua Czen King. Prawdziwa Księga Południowego Kwiatu, tłum. W. Jabłoński, J. Chmielewski, O. Wojtasiewicz, T. Żbikowski, Warszawa: PWN.
  9. Dstrugeon, Chinese Text Project, 2011,
  10. Diogens Laertios, 1984. Żywoty i poglądy słynnych filozofów, Warszawa: PWN.
  11. Feng, Youlan. 2001. Krótka historia filozofii chińskiej, Warszawa: PWN.
  12. Frege, G. 1977. Pisma semantyczne, Warszawa: PWN.
  13. Graham, A. 1978. Later Mohist Logic, Ethics and Science. Hong Kong and London: Chinese University Press.
  14. Graham, A. C. 1989. Disputers of the Tao: Philosophical Argument in Ancient China. La Salle, Illinois: Open Court.
  15. Hansen, Ch. 1983. A Tao of Tao in Chuang Tzu. w: Mair, Victor, ed. ,,Experimental Essays on Chuang-tzu”, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. 24 55.
  16. Hansen, Ch. 1983. Language and Logic in Ancient China. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  17. Hansen, Ch. 2011. Relativistic Skepticism in the ,,Zhuangzi”, 11.02.2011.
  18. Hao, Wang. 1997. Czym jest logika? w: Woleński, J. (red.) Filozofia logiki, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Spacja-Fundacja Altheia.
  19. Harbsmeier, Ch. 1998. Language and Logic. w: Needham, J. ,,Science and Civilisation in China”. Cembridge University Press.
  20. Knobloch, J. 1994. Xunzi. A Translation and Study of the Complete Works, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  21. Knobloch, J., Riegel, J. 2000. The annals of Lü Buwe, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  22. Laozi. 2006. Laozi. Księga dao i de z komentarzami Wang Bi, tłum. Wójcik, A.I. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskieego.
  23. Lejewski, C. 1954. A constribution to Leśniewski’s mereology, w: ,,Rocznik Polskiego Tow. Naukowgo na Obczyźnie” V.
  24. Lejewski, C. 1955. A new axiom for merology, w: ,,Rocznik Polskiego Tow. Naukowgo na Obczyźnie” VI.
  25. Leśniewski, St. 1914. Czy klasa klas nie podporządkowanych sobie jest podporządkowana sobie? w: Przegląd Filozoficzny, XVII/I.
  26. Leśniewski, St. 1927. O podstawach matematyki, w: Przegląd Filozoficzny, XXX/2-3.
  27. Leśniewski, St. 1928. O podstawach matematyki, w: Przegląd Filozoficzny, XXXI/ 3.
  28. Lucas, T, 1993, Hui Shih and Kung Sun Lung: an Approach from Contemporary Logic, Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 20(2): 211-55.
  29. Murawsk,i R. 1986. Filozofia matematyki. Antologia tekstów klasycznych, Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.
  30. Murawski, R. 2001. Filozofia matematyki. Zarys dziejów, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
  31. Russell, B. 1902. List do Fregego, w: Murawski, R. 1986 s.221.
  32. Simons, P. 1998. Nominalizm in Poland, w: Srzednicki, J.T., Stachniak, Z. ,,Leśniewski's systems protothetic”, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  33. Simons, P. M. 1987. Parts. A Study in Ontology, Oxford: Clarendon.