 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 term 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 to a very great extent true 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 pursuing linguistic term, but in a 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 a very active period very active in philosophizing with different streams of different approaches to philosophy and philosophy of language this age as witnessed. And this lecture we will just see we will have a very brief introduction about the linguistic term 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 has evolved primarily through the works of G. Moore and 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. Linguistic analysis is adopted as a method, but this method is supplemented by a philosophy a metaphysics a kind of you know 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 term 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 René Descartes and Spinoza and many others in the continental rationalistic tradition. And of course the British empiricist tradition all these philosophers were dealing with the problem of knowledge rather than addressing the concept of reality or knowledge about reality. They were rather interested in the to know about knowledge itself what is knowledge. So that is why modern philosophy is predominantly epistemological they were all adopting a kind of epistemological approach which again changes or undergoes a very important change during the initial years of 20th century with the works of Bertrand Russell and G. E. Moore. So that is why they are often being treated as the founders of this analytic philosophy in British philosophy. So when we talk about linguistic term, linguistic term deals with the conception that philosophical problems are problems about meaning. And when you talk about meaning we are dealing with a 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 was a time when even Wittgenstein went to meet Frege and Frege asked Wittgenstein to go back and work with Bertrand Russell because Bertrand Russell was also sort of involved in a kind of work which Frege was part of. So there Frege has already pointed out that certain conceptions like truth for example which philosophers traditional philosophers have always treated as one of the most important metaphysical concepts Frege has 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 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 term has already been initiated and according to some thinkers like Michael Domet and others Frege is the for 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 owe a 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 were dealing with the problem of identifying the logical foundations of mathematics or to put it in other words they were trying to reduce all mathematical propositions to logical propositions. So it is a very interesting project both of them were sort of undertaking 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 a kind of logical truth and logical concepts. So this is this can be termed as a kind of logicism in philosophy which was primarily educated by Frege and then very great extent by Russell as well. But when you talk about linguistic turn in philosophy we can say that it began with the works of G. Moore and Bertrand Russell not with you know 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 due 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 or rather as a matter of logical analysis of language. So in that sense linguistic philosophy began with the works of G. Moore and Bertrand Russell and it was influenced by Gottlieb 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 lifetime. Now when you come to the see the relationship between these two great thinkers Frege and Russell I have already indicated that they both tried to reduce mathematics to logic and 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 once this is being done in the domain of mathematics philosophers later philosophers started thinking why cannot we apply these two other domains of language use as well. So gradually in that way analytical philosophy or philosophy of language evolved and in this context G. Moore especially what he has done is that he analyzed the works of other philosophers to explore the ambiguity in their statements primarily his own contemporaries even better results works he has analyzed. Primary purpose of exposing the ambiguities in the works of his other philosophers and in his writings philosophy was seen as a critic of language and 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 term which we will be examining in detail in the next lecture that philosophy is not a theory but an activity philosophy is a critic of language according to Wittgenstein and his tractors logical philosophical which is here written as TLP inspired many thinkers including the positivist we can see that you know in the two course of this lecture. The lecture series the next lecture and the following one would be concentrating on the contributions of these thinkers Wittgenstein and logical positivist and many others. So they were all influenced by Wittgenstein's tractors though Wittgenstein distance himself from such interpretations and readings of his work he always considered that the reading of his tractors by the logical positivist and even even Bertrand Russell himself was grossly misleading. Now let us go back to this original problem with which we have 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 immemorial has been taken up for examination for analysis and they have all been sort of treated as concepts. So when you have reduced all these problems to concepts now they have become linguistic entities concepts are 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 this 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 and 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 20th century analytic philosophy. Now Russell's philosophy so Bertrand Arthur William Russell was born on 18th May 1972 Lord John Russell who was twice prime minister of UK who introduced the famous Reformed Bill of 1832 which was actually instrumental for the democratization process in Great Britain was his paternal grandfather and he was in his formative years we can see that Russell as a student of philosophy has read widely and very intelligent very studious. He was influenced 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 written a book on Leibniz's philosophy and Leibniz was also interestingly a mathematician and a logician so and also to some extent we can see that some of these elementary ideas about philosophy of language we can actually find their roots in Leibniz's philosophy. So he was influenced by Descartes, Leibniz, Berkeley, David Hume all are empiricist philosophers except Descartes he was influenced by Descartes, Leibniz, Berkeley, David Hume then you can see the influence of people like Italian logician Piano then Gottlieb 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 Sigwick, J. Swart and G. F. Stott 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. MacTuggett who was and started viewing British empiricism of whom he has read of Lockean type as crude and started admiring the idealism of Kantian and Hegelian types and under G. F. Stott's influence he started admiring the neo-hegelian Oxford philosopher F. H. Bradley and his idealism and actually Russell himself confesses 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 Bradleyan type of idealism and also the Hegelian type. Advocated a version of idealism during this period and later with more 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 inquired whether mathematics can be supplied with logical foundations and in 1900 he met Italian logician Garzipo Pano who influenced 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 philosophy is 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 Piano in mathematical logic. So, sort of two supplementary kind of approaches like on the one hand the logical atomism which is more realistic and empiricistic on the other hand the techniques of mathematical logic. This was so great a revolution as to make my previous work 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 intellectually undergone during this period he himself calls a revolution because it has actually opened up he has or rather made all his previous works which was rooted 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 it in that way and during 1890's Russell was under the influence of German idealism held the agalian view that all reality is mental or spiritual we have already examined Hegel's philosophy. So, what the implications are quite clear Russell advocated a form of idealism much in line of Bradley and the universe ultimately consist 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 exists 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 perspective of monism is thus advocated. But when we try to refute idealism objects of experience are independent of experience of them this is a very realistic position idealism says that objects of experience are depend they actually depend on their mind as Berkeley would famously put it to be used to be perceived. But here the refutation of idealism consisting holding a realistic 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 I quote reality is one it must be single because plurality taken as real contradicts itself plurality implies relations and through its relations it unwillingly asserts always a superior unity see this is called 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 interrelationship between things implies what? Which implies that there is a superior unity among things so in that sense Bradley says that plurality is self contradictory and now Russell here comes up with a very interesting analysis which is actually a linguistic analysis a language analysis a criticism rooted in language analysis. So, he analyzes 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 is he identifies such statements which would consist the gist of idealism or rather the crux of idealism and then analyzes those statements and tries to expose tries to show that those statements involve a kind of contradiction. So, this is what he does so here itself we can see that the approach is linguistic or rooted in linguistic analysis philosophy of language now here what he takes is the fundamental notion of idealism or the idea that all relations are internal. Because if in relations are external which means that they are not rather intimate say for example, when I say 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 call internal relationship. Because there is something there is nothing that makes me and this computer related in such a way that it 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 in internal relationship because otherwise we would not call it a ball. So, but for better results says that for idealism to be true they should be asserting that all relations are internal the relation of experience to its objects are internal therefore, there is no such thing as relation all 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 internally related we can say. We do not have to rather it is conceived that the realities 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 a 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 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 see here ball is round roundness is predicated to 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 constitute 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 friend of me a is to the left of b I can say or the computer is in friend 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 be in friend of this computer. The relation to the left of does not belong intrinsically to any spatial object or in friend of does not belong to the nature of any object and again no spatial object must of necessarily be necessarily 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 the relations are internal and you are 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 computer. So, that the computer is in friend 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 homogenous spiritual entity. Now, let us see this is from this context we 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 a result of a linguistic confusion. So, every philosophical problem according to Russell or 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 these 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 philosophy of language in general that there is a structure which needs to be brought out in analysis the logical structure. In fact, in the next lecture we would see this Wittgenstein famously states in one occasion he says that language disguises thoughts language disguises thoughts. So, since the linguistic structure which is the common semantic structure which has the tendency to sort of express something explicitly, but the real meaning is hidden something which is the which needs to be found by analyzing it structurally. And when we talk about structure what is the 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 kind of structure which is syntactic grammatical structure. So, there is a distinction between the surface grammar of propositions and the depth 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 metaphysics. It talks about logical atoms which Russell believes 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 have reached there. Initially adopted a form of phenomenon 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 an empiricist in innocence an empiricist who acknowledges the importance of sensory data or sense 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. And now in 1927 in his book the analysis of matter Russell analyzes the chief concepts of physics such as force and matter in terms of events. Again you can see there is a kind of an 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 a realism because physics deals with experience the world that is experienced and the validity of the world that is experienced needs to be assumed needs to be presupposed by the physicist. So, in that sense he had to adopt a kind of realist position which would assert that entities exist independent of perception of them. So, this is the period of phenomenalism or the phenomenal 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 its 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 a 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 its 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 is his you can see the relationship between physics and language analysis because in physics the method of analysis was adopted by physicist by scientist they analyzes the world. Analyzes the world into things and things are further analyzed into molecules and atoms and further into atoms. So, this is the process of analysis which is undertaken by the scientist. So, a similar kind of analysis is initiated by philosophers in language. So, what in language he does is 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 because the linguistic counterpart of a fact is called a proposition. The fact that there is a bottle on the table is expressed by the proposition quote and code there is a bottle on the table. So, fact and proposition which later on we would see when we discuss 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 locations 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, we 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 though this is a 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 a statement which is absolutely very clear what is stated by it we all understand what is stated by it, but now Russell what Russell does is he subjects this statement to logical analysis and says that it reveals three things number one there exist at present at least one person who reigns in France number two there exist at least there exist at present at most one person who reigns in France at least one and 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 into 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 exist 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 since. So, philosophy might also contain or metaphysics might also contain 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 this actually summarizes Bertrand Russell's 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 20 chairs in this class the apple is red in color the sugar is sweet all these are sort of propositions where things with many qualities and relations exist a fact can be analyzed into its 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 I 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 would not 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 he comes to his analysis. So, analysis of propositions is what language analysis consists 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 and or if then that is the kind of hypothetical and is conjunction or is 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 symbols 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 analysis 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 day 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 do not really care about the clarity of our thoughts. So, the obvious and vague 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 a 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 feel that there is it is a quite legitimate meaningful expression and we would try to understand it, but it is actually a 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 or 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 through description. So, this is what the major contribution of theory 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 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 an note 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. Moore and Bertrand Russell the present day analytic philosophy was born. So, their contributions were 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. Eyre who is a 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 the Vienna circle where the logical positivist used to meet and discussed them elaborately. Then Wittgenstein himself was influenced by Russell. Then the foundations of mathematical logic were almost single-handedly we can say laid by him. I mean I do not want to say foundations, but at least most of the important modern day contributions to symbolic logic and mathematical logic. The foundations are to be found in Russell's work. The development of symbolic logic owes him a lot. So, we will conclude our discussion on Russell's contribution to analytical philosophy. Actually Russell is a multi-faceted figure. It is not just an analytic philosopher or a philosopher of language. He has published more than nearly about 75 books during his lifetime and won Nobel 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 the 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. There he is still relevant absolutely no doubt about it, but his status as a philosopher was questioned by many in future philosophy. And as far as his as a philosopher Russell is concerned as a philosopher his influence is not much today. Compared to Vizavi 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 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.