Welcome to this lecture on Aspects of Western
Philosophy module 28. So, this lecture
onwards we are actually entering the contributions
of 20th century philosophy and we
start with the linguistic turn in British
philosophy probably very relevant to start
with
because it is usually stated that 20th century
western philosophy is philosophy of
language and this is two a very great extent
through for both the traditions the British
Anglo Saxon tradition as well as the continental
tradition of western thought even in the
continental tradition we can see that people
like Heidegger and Gadamer are very
actively perceiving linguistic turn.
But in of course, in a different way in the
British philosophy English speaking countries
particularly British philosophy, it is very
clear the emergence of analytical philosophy
happens during this time and this is the very
active period, very active in philosophizing
with different streams of different approaches
to philosophy and philosophy of language
this age has witnessed and this lecture we
will just see we will have a very brief
introduction about the linguistic turn in
British philosophy, the historical reasons
or
rather the we will just try to instead of
looking at the historical reasons, we will
just try to
see how it is evolved primarily through the
works of G E Moore and the Bertrand
Russell these two very influential thinkers
of 20th century philosophy and of course,
with very significant contributions from Non-English
speaking philosophers like Gottlob
Frege again Wittgenstein is another very important
influence.
So, these are the kind of things which we
are going to cover in this lecture. We will
particularly concentrate on the philosophy
of Bertrand Russell by seeing his refutation
of
idealism and how this refutation is initiated
by adopting a philosophical method called
analytical philosophy analysis of language
and linguistic analysis is adopted as a method
but this method is supplemented by philosophy;
a metaphysics a kind of you know a
theory of reality by Bertrand Russell which
is elaborated in his logical atomism. So,
we
will very briefly introduce Russell’s logical
atomism in this lecture.
Well, when we talk about linguistic turn in
British philosophy there are certain things
to
be kept in mind. The modern period which we
have already covered in the previous
lectures, we have seen that somewhere around
with the philosophies of Rene Descartes
and Spinoza and many others in the continental
rationalistic tradition and of course, the
British empiricist tradition. All these philosophers
where dealing with the problem of
knowledge rather than addressing the concept
of reality or knowledge about reality they
where rather interested in to know about knowledge
itself, what is knowledge.
So, that is why modern philosophy is predominately
epistemological they were all
adopting a kind of epistemological approach
which again changes or under goes very
important change during the initial years
of twentieth century with the works of Bertrand
Russell and G E Moore. So, that is why it
they are often being treated as the founders
of
this analytic philosophy in British philosophy.
So, when we talk about linguistic turn; linguistic
turn deals with in the conception that
philosophical problems are problems about
meaning and when we talk about meaning
we are dealing with linguistic entity meaning
is something which is there in language.
This is something which is already been worked
upon by philosophers like Gottlob
Frege, a German mathematician and logician
and also a philosopher very important
contributions to the domain of logic and philosophy
of mathematics. We can see that
there is very active exchange between Frege
and Bertrand Russell, then there is a time
when we will Wittgenstein went to meet Frege
and Frege ask we can stein to the go back
and work with work with Bertrand Russell because
Bertrand Russell was also sort of
involved in a kind of work which Frege was
part of.
So, there where Frege has already pointed
out that certain conception like truth for
example, which philosophers, traditional philosophers
have always treated as one of the
most important metaphysical concepts. Frege
is already pointed out that truth can always
be examined in connection with language. So,
in that sense the concept of truth is to be
understood as something as a property of number
sentences, it is a sentence which is
either true or false or a proposition which
is either true or false.
So, in that sense the linguistic turn has
already been initiated and according to some
thinkers like Michael and others Frege is
the founder of analytical
philosophy, but anyway that is something which
is not to be discussed in the course of
this lecture. So, we will just try to understand
that you know the most important point
about linguistic turn is; there is a clear
conception of philosophy or philosophical
problems as they are being treated as problems
arising in language use or problems
related to the meaning which are linguistic
in nature.
So, in that sense again you know as since
we over lot to Frege and Russell they are
all
mathematicians and logicians, there is a kind
of analysis they have initiated in
mathematics because both of them they are
dealing with the problem of identifying the
logical foundations of mathematics or to put
it in other words we were trying to reduce
all mathematical propositions to logical propositions.
So, it is a very interesting project
both of them where sort of under taking and
in that due course what they have
discovered is that all arithmetical concepts
were to be defined in terms of logical ones
and all arithmetical truths were to be shown
provable from logical truths.
So, everything can be ultimately reduced to
kind of logical truth and logical concepts.
So, this can be termed as a kind of logicism
in philosophy which was primarily
advocated by Frege and then to a very great
extent by Russell as well, but when we talk
about linguistic term in philosophy, we can
say that it began with the works of G E
Moore and Bertrand Russell not with Frege.
Though in Frege’s philosophy there is it
involves a lot of language analysis, but the
kind
of turn like all philosophical problems even
we can see that in the in
the course of this lecture, we can see that
Russell is even advancing a kind of linguistic
analysis in order to show that or in order
to refute idealism. So, everything is approached
from a linguistic from or rather as a matter
of philosophical analysis of language. So,
in
that sense a linguistic philosophy began with
the works of G E Moore and Bertrand
Russell and it was influenced by Gottlob Frege’s
work on logic. Another important
influence was Wittgenstein’s very important
work Tractatus Logico Philosophicus, the
only work which he published during his life
time.
Now, when you come to the see the relationship
between these two great thinkers was
Frege and Russell, I have already indicated
that they both try to reduce mathematics to
logic I have to show that all arithmetical
concepts were to be defined in terms of logical
concepts which I have already pointed out
and all truths arithmetical truths to logical
truths, this further led philosophers to explore
the possibilities of exact formal logical
analysis in regard to other areas of language
use. So, ones this is being done in the
domain of mathematics philosophers, later
philosophers started thinking why cannot we
apply this to other domains of language used
as well.
So, gradually in that way analytical philosophy
or philosophy of language evolved.
In this context G E Moore specially, what
he is done is that he analyze the works of
other
philosophers to expose the ambiguity in their
statements. Primarily his own
contemporaries even Bertrand Russell works
he has analyzed, primary purpose of
exposing the ambiguities in the works of its
other philosophers and in his writings
philosophy was seen a critique of language.
Then when you come to Wittgenstein as I have
already pointed out the purpose of
philosophy is the logical clarification of
thoughts. So, that is again a very interesting
aspect very interesting turn which we will
be examining in detail in the next lecture
that
philosophy is not a theory, but an activity
philosophy is a critique of language according
to Wittgenstein and his Tractatus Logico Philosophicus
which is here written as TLP
inspired many thinkers including the positivists
we can see that you know in the course of
this lecture.
In the lecture say is the next lecture and
following one would be concentrating on the
contributions of these thinkers Wittgenstein
and logical positivists and many others. So,
they were all influenced by Wittgenstein Tractatus,
though Wittgenstein distance himself
from such interpretations and readings of
his work he always consider that the readings
of his Tractatus by the logical positivists
and even Bertrand Russell himself was grossly
misleading.
Now, let us go back to this original problem
with which we are began this lecture, the
birth of analytic philosophy the emphasis
on analysis of language rigorous examination
of philosophically important concepts and
the language in which they have expressed.
So, all philosophical concepts like philosophers
have been discussing since time
memorial has been taken up for examination
for analysis and they have all been sort of
treated as concepts. So, when we have reduced
all these problems to concepts, now they
have becoming linguistic entities concepts
of linguistic in nature. Now you conduct a
linguistic analysis in the language in which
they are expressed using the methods and
ideas derived from formal logic developed
by Russell and others. So, in the context
it
needs to be mentioned that the very important
contribution by Russell principles of
mathematics which is actually considered as
the bible of symbolic logic.
So, we should devote a little more attention
on the philosophy of Bertrand Russell here
and the remaining part of this lecture would
concentrate on his contributions to
contemporary twentieth century analytic philosophy.
Now Russell’s philosophy, so
Russell Bertrand Arthur William Russell was
born on 18th may 1972; Lord John Russell
who was twice prime minister of UK who introduced
the famous reform bill of 1832
which was actually instrumental for the democratization
process in Great Britain was his
paternal grandfather and he was in his years
we can see that Russell
as a student of philosophy has thread widely
and very intelligent very studios. He was
influence by many thinkers including Rene
Descartes and Leibniz interestingly there
is a
book which is supposed to be one of his initial
publications in which he has wrote a book
on Leibniz’s philosophy and Leibniz was
also interestingly a mathematician and a
logician.
So, and also to some extend we can see that
some of these elementary ideas about
philosophy of language we can actually find
their routes in Leibniz’s philosophy. So,
he
was influenced by the Descartes, Leibniz,
Berkeley, David Hume all are empiricist
philosophers except Descartes. He was influenced
by Descartes, Leibniz, Berkeley,
David Hume then we can see the influence of
people like Italian logician Peano then
Gottlob Frege then his own contemporary G
E Moore and Alfred North Whitehead who
is his own teacher with whom he has written
this book jointly written this book and
published principles of mathematics.
Now when we concentrate on his intellectual
development, he entered Trinity College in
1890 to read mathematics and studied under
Whitehead, Henry, Sidgwick, James Ward
and G F Stout very prominent professors of
philosophy during those days and each one
of them have influenced Russell in unique
ways. So, we can see that he was influenced
by the Hegelian philosopher again, another
very prominent influence is J M E Mc
Taggart who was and started viewing British
empiricism of who he has red of Lockean
type as crude and started admiring the idealism
of Kantian and Hegelian types and under
G F Stout’s influence he started admiring
the neo-Hegelian oxford philosopher F H
Bradley and his idealism, and actually Russell
himself compasses that his initial period
is
he had devoted a lot to the study of Bradley’s
philosophy, Bradley’s idealism.
His book appearance and reality was treated
as one of the very important works in
philosophy by Russell and he thoroughly read
it and also developed a kind of position
which is very close to the bradleylian of
idealism and also the Hegelian type.
Advocated a version of idealism during this
period and later with Moore he rebelled
against idealism and initiated what is known
as analytic philosophy, we have already
mentioned this he became interested in the
philosophy of mathematics where he
primarily enquired whether mathematics can
be supplied with logical foundations. And
in 1900 he met Italian logician Giuseppe Peano
who influenced in him in the project of
reducing mathematics into logic and in 1903,
he published the important book the
principles of mathematics, he developed the
philosophy position which is known as
logical atomism subsequently.
So, we would be rather focusing more on this
later contribution his philosophies called
as
logical atomism here is a quote from Russell
himself I quote, there is one major division
in my philosophical work in the years 1899
to 1900 I adopted the philosophy of logical
atomism and the technique of Peano in mathematical
logic. So, sort of two
supplementary kind of approaches like one
hand the logical atomism which is more
realistic and empiristic on the other hand
the techniques of mathematical logic. This
was
so great a revolution as to make my previous
book except such as was purely
mathematical irrelevant to everything that
I did later the change in these years was
a
revolution, subsequent changes have been in
the nature of an evolution.
So, Russell himself calls that the kind of
changes he has undergone intellectual
undergone during this period he himself cause
a revolution because it has actually
opened up his or rather made all his previous
works which is routed in the idealistic
tradition completely irrelevant to what he
has done in his later period.
Now, a very brief look into the period of
idealism and how he later on refuted it idealism
as all of us know is the view that reality
is fundamentally mental or spiritual we can
put
into that way and during 1890s Russell was
under the influence of German idealism held
the Hegelian view that all reality is mental
or spiritual.
We have already examine Hegel’s philosophy,
so what the implications are quite clear,
Russell advocated a form of idealism much
in the line Bradley and the universe
ultimately consists of a single mind which
experiences itself, so this is the Hegelian
approach.
Now when it comes to the refutation of idealism;
idealism would advocate a plurality of
things is mere appearance, it would assert
that or rather it would reject all plurality
that
excess and reduces everything to one single
homogeneous spiritual substance for Hegel
it is the absolute or it can be a mind or
a spirit or whatever. And everything is related
to
everything else in the universe otherwise
if the things are unrelated then one cannot
later
on reduce everything to one reality.
So, everything is ultimately reducible to
each other or rather to a one single substance
the
universe is ultimately a single thing everything
is one and the perceptive of monism is
does advocated. But when we try to refute
idealism objects of experience are
independent of experience of them this is
very realistic position idealism says that
objects of experience are depend they actual
depend on their mind as Berkeley would
famously put it to be is to perceived, but
here the refutation of idealism consisting
holding realistic which position which says
that objects of experience are independent
of
the experiencing mind hence it is a form of
realism and it leads to a kind of pluralism
because there are many independent things
in the world as our experience suggest you
know the world is constitutive of many number
of particular things which are
independent of each other. So, from this context
if you come to understand the position
of idealism which is advocated by Bradley;
here is a quote from Bradley.
He says a quote - Reality is one; it must
be single because plurality taken as real
contradicts itself. Plurality implies relations
and through its relations it unwillingly assets
always a superior unity; see this is call
the paradox of plurality.
Plurality implies that there are different
things and different things are related to
each
other because otherwise I mean things can
exist either as totally unrelated or as related
to
each other, but even our common day to day
experience suggest that things are related
to
each other and this inter relationship between
things implies what, it implies that there
is
a superiority among things. So, in that sense
Bradley says that plurality is selfcontradictory
and now Russell here comes up with very interesting
analysis, which is
actually a linguistic analysis, a language
analysis, a criticism routed in language analysis.
So, he analysis some of the possible statements
which an idealist would make or rather to
put it in different way. Some of those fundamental
positions of idealism can be
understood in terms of certain statements.
Certain statements can be elaborated into
an
idealistic view. So, what Russell does us
he identify such statements which would consist
the gist of idealism or rather the crux of
idealism and then analysis those statements
and
tries to exposed, tries to show that those
statements involve a kind of contradiction,
so
this is what he does. So, here itself we can
see that approach is linguistic or routed
in
linguistic analysis philosophy of language.
Now here what it takes is the fundamental
notion of idealism the idea that all relations
are internal.
Because if in relations are external which
means that they are not rather intimate see
for
example, when I say there is there is a computer
in front of me. There is a kind of
relationship I am asserting that the computer
is in front of me, but then this relationship
cannot be treated as a kind of what you called
internal relationship because there is
nothing that makes me and this computer related
in such a way that is should always and
necessarily be in front of me, but say for
example extension of a body where there is
a
relationship is actually internal, the roundness
of a ball is again a kind of we can
understood as a kind of a internal relationship
because otherwise we own quality of ball.
But for Bertrand Russell says that for idealism
to be true they should be asserting that all
relations are internal, the relation of experience
to it is objects are internal therefore,
there is no such thing as relation or relations
are unreal. Because if every relation is
internal then that amounts to be saying that
things are not related to each other because
there are no things to be related there is
only one thing because the different parts
of that
one thing is inter related or interrelated
we can say that we do not have to rather is
conceive that the reality is constitute of
independent things, if they are independent
then
they are not related to each other, but there
is relationship and every relationship is
internal.
Now, to refute this Russell initiates a linguistic
analysis, so this is where the contribution
of Russell lies that he comes up with a linguistic
analysis of this position. Idealism and
monism is the result of a linguistic confusion
and his analysis aims at exposing that
confusion.
So, what is the mistake of the idealist Russell
says the root of the problem is a mistaken
view about relations there is a fundamental
flow a mistake about the way in which notion
of relationship itself is conceived by the
idealist. For the idealist all propositions
are of
subject predicate form something is predicated
to the subject.
So, when I say for example, sugar is sweet
I am attributing the sweetness to sugar. So,
something is predicated I am predicating sweetness
to the object sugar. So, here ball is
round, roundness is predicated with the ball
this is internal, it is a nature of the ball
to be
round, it is a nature of sugar to be sweet
that is correct. So, to some extent the idealist
are
right as well as such propositions are concerned
hence all relations are internal. So, from
there they would conclude that all relations
are internal which would ultimately amount
to be saying that there are no relations.
Every proposition constitutes a predication
on reality as a whole and relations are unreal.
So, in that sense the monism is aggressively
asserted because every relation is internal,
so there are no relations there is only one
entity.
So, now the mistake of idealism is according
to Russell to wrongly consider that even
relational propositions are of subject predicate
form. Say for example, the computer is in
front of me, A is to the left of B I can say
on the computer is in front of me, but this
cannot be internal, this relationship obviously
is not internal because we cannot say that
it is internal to the nature of A to be the
left of B or it is internal to the nature
of me to B
in front of this computer.
The relation to the left of does not belong
intrinsically to any spatial object or in
front of
does not belong to the nature of any object
and again no spatial object must of
necessarily be necessity be to the left of
other things for A to be the left of B there
should
be two separate entities A and B, so pluralism
and not monism. So, this is another
interesting aspect because once you say that
all relations are internal and your trying
to
show that relations are internal and which
amounts to be arguing that there are no
relations you are likely to make this mistake
because to recognize that or to say that A
is
to the left of B there should be separate
entities A and B, there should be separate
entities
like me and this computers so that the computer
is in front of me which means that they
are separate they are independent of each
other pluralism and not monism.
So, pluralism refutes the foundational assumption
of idealism which says that reality is a
single homogeneous spiritual entity. Now let
us see this is from this context will try
to
understand Russell’s approach which is an
analysis of language. The philosophical
position of idealism is approached linguistically;
we have seen the confusion the mistake
is a linguistic this is the result of a linguistic
confusion.
So, every philosophical problem according
to Russell like philosophical problems or
philosophical positions which these idealist
and other philosophers, other metaphysicians
have adopted implicitly contain certain propositions
which ultimately can be analyzed
and shown mistaken.
Analyze the feasibility of such a proposition
with an analysis of language and it exposes
the logical contradictions. It suggests that
there is a structure which needs to be brought
out in analysis which is a logical structure.
So, this is again a very important aspect
of
contemporary analytical philosophy or philosophical
language in general that there is a
structure which needs to be brought out in
analysis the logical structure. In fact, the
next
lecture we would see this Wittgenstein famously
states in one location he says that
language disguises thoughts, language disguises
thoughts.
So, since the linguistic structure which is
the command semantic structure which has the
tendency to sort of express something explicitly,
but the real meaning is hidden
something which needs to be found by analyzing
it structurally and when we talk about
structure what is this structure, it is a
logical structure which Russell talks about
which
would reveal itself in logical analysis. So,
a logical analysis of propositions would reveal
the logical structure, which is different
from the kinds of structure which is syntactic
grammatically structure. So, there is a distinction
between the surface grammar of
propositions and the debt grammar of proposition.
The syntactical structure and the semantical
structure, the semantical structure is the
logical structure which would be revealed
in the process of analysis.
Now, in this context let us see logical atomism
which is actually which is two aspects
logical atomism is Russell’s metaphysical.
He talks about logical atoms which Russell
beliefs constitutes language or reality, on
the other hand this position was arrived at
by
means of performing a kind of logical analysis
of language. So, in that sense it is
linguistic as well as metaphysical we can
put it in that way.
Now before we really enter into or really
start discussing the logical atomism proper,
let
us see how we are reach there. Initially adopted
a form of phenomenalism which says
that perceptual knowledge can be analyzed
in terms of our acquaintance with the
fundamental data of sensory experience, so
from the beginning itself there is an emphasis
on sense experience. Russell is in that sense
you can see and empiricist in essence an
empiricist who acknowledges the importance
of sensory data or sensory experience. His
book our knowledge of the external world and
his paper the relations of sense data to
physics published in the same year advocate
this position of phenomenalism.
Now in 1927 in his book the analysis of matter
Russell analyses the chief concepts of
physics such as force and matter in terms
of events. Again you can see there is a kind
of
in approach to reduce things and here it takes
an explicit realist position in order to
analyze the basic concepts of physics one
has to admit that certain entities like exist
independently of perception of them. So, some
sort of realism because physics deals with
experience, the world there is experienced
and the validity of the world that is experience
needs to be assumed, needs to be presuppose
by the physicist. So, in that sense he had
to
adopt a kind of realistic position which would
assert that entities exist independent of
perception of them.
So, this is the period of phenomenalism or
the phenomena spirit and from there you can
see that the advancement to logical atomism
is quite natural. Logical atomism was
developed in order to resolve questions about
the nature of perception and it is relation
to
physics. So, on the one hand nature of perception
your experience and then on the other
hand the world, the world also has plays a
role or the experience and reality are not
really
sort of you need to account for that. To provide
a qualified empirical basis for science
considered as the theory of the world which
has the best chance of being true or at least
on the way to truth and his account of the
nature of reality explained in terms of it
is
logical structure which is Russell’s metaphysics.
So, what is this logical structure for that
we have to see the logical analysis he initiates.
He asserts that mathematical logic is the
essence of philosophy; all philosophy
mathematical logic the kind of logical structure
he asserts and here he initiates an
analysis of the structures of propositions
and facts. So, here you can see the relationship
between physics and language analysis because
in physics, the method of analysis was
adopted by physicists, by scientist they analyses
the world and analysis the world into
things and things are further analyzed into
at molecules and atoms and further into
atoms.
So, that is this is the process of analysis
which is under taken by the by the scientist.
So,
a similar kind of analysis is initiated by
philosophers in language. So, what in language
it
does us he the analysis of the structures
of propositions and facts. So, there are two
things on the one hand you have facts in the
world. Say for example, there are 20 chairs
in this class which is a fact there are two
human beings in the class this is another
fact,
there is a bottle of water on the table there
is a computer on the table these are all facts
which I can express and when I express them
in language, they become propositions.
The linguistic counter part of a fact is called
a proposition, the fact
that there is a bottle on the table is expressed
by the proposition quote and quote there is
a bottle on the table.
So, fact and proposition which later on we
would see when we discussed Wittgenstein he
calls it a picture theory of language. Russell’s
paper on denoting describes the process of
analysis which distinguishes the surface grammar
which I have already mentioned,
which is misleading and which is incorrect
of propositions which are misleading from
the depth grammar which refers to the essential
logical structure of language and also of
reality. Now this distinction of surface grammar
from depth grammar lies at the very
heart of the theory of analysis proposed by
Russell and many others even Wittgenstein
himself mentions about this it is a mistake
to treat them all as subject predicate form,
all
propositions are not of subject predicate
form.
Surface grammar of statements are often misleading
as we take descriptions and ordinary
names to be denoting expressions while on
several occasions they need not do. So,
analysis can bring this out by revealing the
structure of propositions, the paper on
denoting exemplifies such an analysis. So,
will just see very briefly an example which
Russell himself initiates in his classic paper
on denoting.
So, he says the present king of France is
bald, this is the statement Russell subjects
to
analysis; the present king of France is bald.
In logical analysis this statement asserts
three
things see apparently this is a normal ordinary
kind of statement which is absolutely very
clear what is stated by it we have understand
what is stated by it.
But now Russell what Russell does us he subjects
this statement to logical analysis and
says that it reveals three things. Number
one there exists at present, at least one
person
who reigns in France. Number two there exists
at least there it is there exists at present
at
most one person who reigns in France, at least
one at most one only then it becomes the
king whoever reigns in France is bald. So,
the statement the present king in France king
of France is bald actually can be analyzed
to do these three propositions and only if
all
the three propositions are true, the statement
the present king of France is bald is also
true.
Now, again the statement there exists at present
at least one person who reigns in France
is false, straight away because France is
not a monarchy it is a democracy and there
is no
king of France, there is no object corresponding
to the expression king of present king of
France. Therefore, the conjunction of the
three statement is also false to be either
true or
false the subject of the proposition must
refer to something hence the statement the
present king of France is bald is meaningless
according to Russell.
So, analysis would reveal that this particular
statement or this particular proposition is
senseless or meaningless. So, philosophy might
also contain or metaphysics might also
contains several such propositions which in
the course of analysis would reveal that or
the structural analysis would reveal that
such propositions are ultimately false they
are
meaningless they are senseless or nonsensical.
So, here comes the notion of logical structure
of the world and of language which is
revealed in analysis. So, both the logical
structure of the world and of the language
are
revealed in the process of analysis which
is just been initiated by Russell and this
is
actually summarizes Bertrand Russell logical
atomism, this one or two slides it says that
the world consists of facts, the world is
full of facts things with many qualities and
relations. So, all these are facts there are
twenty chairs in this class, the apple is
red in
color, the sugar is sweet all these are sort
of propositions were things with many qualities
and relations existed.
A fact can be analyzed into it is constituents
like things qualities and relations facts
are
expressed by propositions. So, we have seen
all these things and propositions are forms
of words asserted as true or false. When I
say there are 20 chairs in this class this
statement is either true or false because
I can go and verify can count it and if there
are
only 19 chairs in this class then the statement
which I made is false and if there are
exactly 20 chairs in this class the statement
is true, but if I say for example, there is
one
god in this classroom. So, applying Russell’s
method of analysis I want be able to show
that or prove that there is one entity called
god corresponding to the word god.
So, this sentence since there is no possibility
of denoting is senseless or meaningless.
Propositions which express basic facts are
atomic propositions, so now we come to his
analysis. So, analysis of propositions is
what language analysis consist of, so you
analyze
every proposition into parts and then ultimately
they would reveal the atomic structure of
the proposition which are logical atomic propositions.
Atomic proposition asserts that a
thing has a certain quality or stands to some
other thing in a certain relation. When
atomic propositions are combined by means
of logical words such as or, if then that
is
the kind of hypothetical and his conjunction
or his disjunction. A complex or molecular
proposition is what the result is and if all
the atomic facts are known and that they are
all
the atomic facts we could infer all other
truths from them.
So, this is in summary the kind of logical
atomism he advocates, now the logical analysis
which takes us down to the ultimate simples
out of which the world is built are the kind
of entities which analysis take us to and
atoms are arrived as the last residue of logical
analysis. So, as the final point like in physics
when the physicist goes on analyzing the
world the world would be analyzed and further
reaches a point where further analyzes
would become impossible, those points are
called atoms.
Molecules can be further divided into atoms
and atoms are considered as indivisible,
they are hypothetical entities which are indivisible
and for Russell language analysis
would also take us to such a position where
further analysis of proposition would
become impossible they are atoms or atomic
propositions. From the obvious and vague
ordinary beliefs about the world to more precise
clear and definite kind of a knowledge,
so what happens is what we gain from such
an analysis is precisely this; in our day
to
day normal day to conversation there are many
things which are ambiguous there, we
take for granted many things and we do not
care we do not bother about analyzing
things, we are do not really care about the
clarity of our thoughts. So, the obvious and
wake ordinary beliefs about the world to more
precise clear and definite knowledge
about the world.
So, this is what analysis takes us to and
the analysis of complex symbols or propositions
into the simple symbols from which they are
combined. Analysis takes us to the point of
direct acquaintance with the objects which
are the meanings of simple symbols. So, here
again you can see the empiricism they finally,
you reach a point where there is a very
directly one to one relationship between a
simple which we use in language a simple and
simple symbol and the object in the world.
And it reveals how misleading the surface
grammar can be for example, the present king
of France, it is misleading because grammatically
it says that the present king of France
is bald we all. So, feel that there is it
is a quite legitimate meaningful expression
and we
would try to understand it, but it is actually
nonsensical statement according to Russell
because there is no object corresponding to
the description the present king of France.
He distinguishes that ordinary language has
a misleading structure, all ordinary language
because in ordinary language we use the same
word to denote different things or the
different words to stand for the same object.
So, all such confusions might arise as a
result of employing ordinary language and
again in metaphysics philosophers also
commits such mistakes. Such ambiguous misleading
expressions can be logically
analyzed though descriptions. So, this is
what the major contribution of the area of
descriptions or on denoting, this will reveal
the logical structure ultimately of language
and here comes the idea of ideal language
which is actually proposed by Frege, it is
there
in Frege’s, Frege calls about a concept
script which is an ideal language where each
word stands for an object and only one and
one object.
So, this avoids all the confusions, so this
is a kind of construction of an artificial
language which for technical purposes which
would avoid all confusions in thinking that
will bring out the logical structure which
is the depth grammar, each word will have
an
object to represent and an object will have
one and only one symbol.
So, that is it now let us conclude our discussion
on the contributions of Russell’s
philosophy with not on his importance in the
history of philosophy. He has opened a new
way of philosophizing, no doubt because as
I pointed out it was largely due to the works
of G E Moore and Bertrand Russell, the current
the present day analytical philosophy
was bond.
So, their contributions where very interesting
and very valid during those days they
clearly initiated a break with the tradition
and influenced and inspired many different
movements in 20th century Anglo Saxon philosophy.
You can see that after this logical
positivism straight away there is a very clear
influence like people like A J Ayer who is
English philosopher, British philosopher also
a logical positivist he was part of the
logical positivist movement from Britain.
So, he has taken Russell’s work to the (Refer
Time: 45:11) circle where they logical positivist
use to meet and discussed them
elaborately then Wittgenstein himself was
influence by Russell then foundations of
mathematical logic were almost single handedly
we can say lead by him.
I mean, I do not want to say foundations,
but at least most of the important modern
they
contributions to symbolic logic and mathematical
logic, the foundations are to be found
in Russell’s work. His development of symbolic
logic owes in a lot, so we will conclude
our discussion on Russell’s contribution
to analytical philosophy. Actually Russell
is a
multifaceted figure is not just an analytic
philosopher or a philosopher of language,
he
has published more than nearly about 75 books
during his life time and one noble prize
for literature for his contributions to philosophy
and again he was also very actively
participated in social and political affairs,
he was part of the movement which initiated
the resistance against Germans during the
second world war. Then also has written
extensively about morality, morals, religion
his books like marriage and morals another
one is why I am not a Christian; all these
are path breaking works in many domains.
But in spite of all his contributions into
a variety of areas, the most important
contributions of Russell as Wittgenstein rightly
pointed out lie in the domain of
mathematical logic, where he is still relevant
absolutely no doubt about it, but his status
has a philosopher as was questioned by many
in future philosophy and as far as a
philosopher Russell is concerned as a philosopher
his influence is not much today
compared to we the influence Wittgenstein
has on contemporary
thinking. But at the same time we should not
forget the fact that Wittgenstein himself
was influenced by Russell, who was once upon
a time Wittgenstein’s mentor in Oxford
and later on was responsible for developing
some of his ideas, but of course,
Wittgenstein developed a philosophy independent
of his master which Russell himself
was not very happy with. But his contributions
to philosophy of language, mathematical
logic are phenomenal.
So, we will wind up this lecture here next
lecture will be on the philosophy of
Wittgenstein which is very closely related
to one aspect of Wittgenstein philosophy we
can see is very closely related to the logical
atomism which Russell developed or rather
Russell himself was influenced by Wittgenstein’s
thinking to some extent we can say in
that way. So, we will see that in the next
lecture till then.
Thank you.
