The Philosophyof LogicalAtomism BertrandRussell TheMonist 1918, 1919 http://mon ist. buffalo. ed u/ BERTRAND RUSSELL o.M., F,R,S. Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridgc Logic and Knowledge ESSAYS r9or-r g5o EDITED BY ROBERT CHARLES MARSII I CAPRICORN BOOKS New York rgr8 THE PHILOSOPHYOF LOGICAL ATOMISM The following [is the text] of a couise of eight lectures delivered in [Gordon Square] London, in the first months of r9r8, [which] are very largely concernedwith explaining certain ideas which I learnt from my friend and former pupil Ludwig Wittgenstein. I h4ve had no oppor- tunity of knowing his views since August, rgr+, and I do not even know whether he is alive or dead.* He has therefore no responsibility for what is said in these lectures beyond that of having originally sup- plied many of the theories contained in them. CONTENTS I Facts and Propositions r78 II Partictrlans, Predicates, and Rehtions r89 III Atomic and Moleathr Propoitions 203 IV Propoitians and Factswith more than one Verb; Beliefs, etc. zt6 v Gmeral Propoitions and Eristence zz8 VI Desaiptions and Incomplete Symbols z4r VII The Theoryof Typesand Symbolism;Classes zS+ Ylll Ercursusinto Metaphysics:What ThereIs z69 preface publication ' flhis was written in r9r8 as a to in three consecutive issuesof The Monist. I have made four trivial editorial changesfor the present reprinting in an entirely different format,-R.C.M.] r77 r78 Locrc AND KNoWLEDGE THE PHTLOSOPHYOF LOGICAL ATOMISN{ r79 I. FACTS AND PROPOSITIONS inevitably from absolutely undeniable data. When I talk of 'undeni- able data' that is not to be regarded as synonymous with 'true THIs courseof lectureswhich I am now beginningI havecalled data',because 'undeniable' is a psychologicalterm and'true'is not. the Philosophy of Logical Atomism. Perhaps I had fuetterbegin When I say that something is 'undeniable', I mean that it is not by sayinga word or two as to what I understandby that title. the sort of thing that anybody is goipg to deny; it does not follow The kind of philosophy I that wish to advocate,which I call from that that it is true, though it does follow that we shall all Logical Atomism, is one which has forced itself upon me in the think it true-and that is as near to truth as we seem able to get. courseof thinking aboutthe philosophy of mathematics,although When you are considering any sort of theory of knowledge' you I should find it hard to say exactly how far there is a definite are more or less tied to a certain unavoidable subjectivity, because logicalconnexion between the two. The things I am going to say you are not concerned simply with the questioh what is true of the in theselectures are mainly my own personal opinionsand I do world, but 'What can I know of the world?' You always have to not claim that they are more than that. start any kind of argument from something which aPpearsto you As I have attempted to prove in The Principlesof Mathematics, to be true; if it appears to you to be true, there is no more to be when we analysemathematics we bring it all back to logic. It all done. You cannot go outside yourself and consider abstractly comesback to logic in the strictest and most formal sense.In the rvhether the things that appear to you to be true are true; you may present lectures,I shall try to set forth in a sort of outline, rather do this in a particular case, where one of your beliefs is changed briefly and rather unsatisfactorily, a kind of logical doctrine which in consequenceof others among your beliefs. seemsto me to result from philosophy the of mathematics-not The reasonthat I call my doctrine logical atomism is becausethe exactlylogically, but aswhat emergesas one reflects: a certainkind atoms that I wish to arrive at as the sort of last residue in analysis of logicaldoctrine, and on the basisof this a certainkind of meta- are logical atoms and not physical atoms. Some of them will be physic. The logic which I shall advocateis atomistic, as opposed what I call 'particulars'-such things as little patches of colour or to the monisticlogic of the peoplewho more or lessfollow Hegel. sounds, momentary things-and some of them will be predicates When I saythat my logicis atomistic,I mean that I sharethe com- or relations and so on. The point is that the atom I wish to arrive mon-sensebelief that there are many separate things; I do not re- at is the atom of logical analysis, not the atom of physical analysis. gard the apparent multiplicity of the world as consisting merely It is a rather curious fact in philosophy that the data which are in phasesand unreal divisionsof a single indivisible Reality. It undeniable to start with are always rather vague and ambiguous. results from that, that a considerablepart of what one would have You can, for instance, sayt 'There are a number of people in this to do to justify the sort of philosophy I wish to advocatewould room at this moment.' That is obviously in some senseundeniable. consistin justifying the processof analysis. One is often told that But when you come to try and define what this room is, and what the processof analysisis falsification, that when you analyseany it is for a person to be in a room, and how you are going to dis- given concretewhole you falsify it and that the results of analysis tinguish one person from another, and so forth, you find that what arenot true. I do not think that is a right view. I do not meanto say, you have said is most fearfully vague and that you really do not of course,and nobody would maintain,that when you haveana- know what you meant. That is a rather singular fact, that every- lysed you keep everything that you had before you analysed.If thing you are really sure of, right off is something that you do not you did, you would never attain anything in analysing.I do not know the meaning of, and the moment you get a precise statement proposeto meet the viewsthat I disagreewith by controversy,by you will not be sure whether it is true or false, at least right off. arguingagainst those views,-but rather by positively settingio-rtir The processof sound philosophizing, to my mind, consists mainly what I believeto be the truth aboutthe matter,and endeavour-ing in passing from those obvious, vague' ambiguous things, that we all the way through to make the views that I advocateresuli feel quite sure of, to something precise, clear, definite, which by I8O LOGIC AND KNOWLEDGE THE pHrr,osopny oF LocrcAL AToMIsM r8r reflection and analysiswe find is involved in the vague thing that monkey,and that anything whatsoeverthat you seemto know-but we staft from, and is, so to speak,the real truth of which that vague that the psychologistrecognizes as being the product of previous thing is a sort of shadow.I should like, if time were longerand if thought and analysisand reflection on your part-cannot really be I knew more than I do, to spenda whole lecture on the conception taken as a premissin your own knowledge.That, I say,is a theory of vagueness.I think vaguenessis very much more important in which is very widely held and which is used againstthat kind of the theory of knowledgethan you would judge it to be from the analytic outlook which I wish to urge. ft seemsto me that when writingsof mostpeople. Everything is vagueto a degreeyou do not your object is, not simply to study the history or developmentof realizetill you havetried to make it precise,and everything precise mind, but to ascertainthe nature of the world, you do not want to is so remote from everything that we normally think, that you can- go any further back than you are Uready yourself. You do not not for a moment supposethat is what we really mean when we say want to go back to the vaguenessof the child or monkey, because what we think. you will find that quite sufficient difficulty is raised by your own When you passfrom the vagueto the preciseby the method of vagueness.But there one is confronted by one of those difficulties analysisand reflection that I am speaking of, you always run a that occur constantly in philosoph!, where you have two ultimate certain risk of error. If I start with the statementthat there are so prejudices conflicting and where argument ceases.There is the and so many peoplein this room, and then set to work to makethat type of mind which considersthat what is called primitive experi- statement precise, I shall run a great many risks and it will be encemust be a better guide to wisdom than the experienceof re- extremely likely that any precise statementI make will be some- flective persons,and there is the type of mind which takesexactly thing not true at all. So you cannot very easily or simply get from the oppositeview. On that point I cannot seeany argument what- these vague undeniable things to precise things which are going soever.It is quite clear that a highly educatedperson sees,hears, to retain the undeniability of the starting-point. The precisepro- feels, does everything in a very different way from a young child positions that you arrive at may be hgically premissesto the sys- or animal, and that this whole manner of experiencingthe world tem that you build up upon the basis of them, but they are not and of thinking about the world is very much more analytic than premissesfor the theory of knowledge.