Introduction to Mathematical PhilosophyRussell, Bertrand
Philosophy
Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy
Russell, Bertrand
Mathematics -- Philosophy
Certain characteristics of the subject are clear. To begin
with, we do not, in this subject, deal with particular things or
particular properties: we deal formally with what can be said
about any thing or any property. We are prepared to say that
one and one are two, but not that Socrates and Plato are two,
because, in our capacity of logicians or pure mathematicians,
we have never heard of Socrates and Plato. A world in which
there were no such individuals would still be a world in which
one and one are two. It is not open to us, as pure mathematicians
or logicians, to mention anything at all, because, if we do so,
[Pg 196]
we introduce something irrelevant and not formal. We may
make this clear by applying it to the case of the syllogism.
Traditional logic says: "All men are mortal, Socrates is a man,
therefore Socrates is mortal." Now it is clear that what we
mean to assert, to begin with, is only that the premisses imply
the conclusion, not that premisses and conclusion are actually
true; even the most traditional logic points out that the actual
truth of the premisses is irrelevant to logic. Thus the first
change to be made in the above traditional syllogism is to state
it in the form: "If all men are mortal and Socrates is a man,
then Socrates is mortal." We may now observe that it is intended
to convey that this argument is valid in virtue of its form, not
in virtue of the particular terms occurring in it. If we had
omitted "Socrates is a man" from our premisses, we should
have had a non-formal argument, only admissible because
Socrates is in fact a man; in that case we could not have generalised
the argument. But when, as above, the argument is formal,
nothing depends upon the terms that occur in it. Thus we may
substitute for men, for mortals, and for Socrates, where
and are any classes whatever, and is any individual. We
then arrive at the statement: "No matter what possible values
and and may have, if all 's are
's and is an , then is
a "; in other words, "the propositional function 'if all 's
are and is an , then is a ' is always true." Here at last
we have a proposition of logic—the one which is only suggested by
the traditional statement about Socrates and men and mortals.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account