The Future Of Mankind By Bertrand Russell

Q. Russell seldom takes refuge in fantasies yet his idea of the world government
seems to be quite farfetched. Elaborate from his works, especially Unpopular Essays.
(2010)
OR
Q. Uphold or refute Russells advocacy of World Government in his Unpopular
Essays, especially in view of the turn history' has recently taken. (2005)
OR
Q. Do you think Bertrand Russells proposal for the establishment of a world
government is desirable, or even tenable? (P.U. 2004)
OR
Q. Uphold or refute Russells advocacy of world Government in his Unpopular
.Essays, especially in view of the turn history has recently taken
(P.U. 2005)

Ans: Russell surely disproves the common established notion about philosophers, that,
they are absent-minded and always busy their heads in making speculations, when he
meditates on the possibilities regarding The Future of Mankind. He has done so,
because of his high sensitivity and deep concern towards human beings. He was called as
a traitor to his country because of his anti-war stand during the First World War. But his
only concern was towards humanity. Later he was awarded a Noble Prize for his
:contribution towards peace. In the words of Erich From
Bertrand Russell fights against the threatening slaughter- because he is a man who loves
.life
Russell discuses three possibilities about The Future of Mankind. According to him,
one is the complete extinction of human life on earth, the second is that human life will
be reduced to barbarism and the final is that there will be a world government that will
control all nations and countries. Among these the first possibility, which he describes, is
the complete extinction of all human beings. This might happen after the Second World
War in which the atomic weapons will be used. Russell deals it logically, for he says, if
still there will be some life after the end of that war, there would soon be another war, for
there would such diehards in the super powers, who would prefer the extermination of
.life, than surrendering to the victory of the other power
And if any man would miraculously be able to escape from death, he may consider
himself to be the emperor of the whole world, but his reign would not be long and his
:subjects would be only dead bodies and Russell says
With his death the uneasy episode of life will end, and the peaceful rocks will revolve
.unchanged, until the sun explodes
 The second possibility, which Russell discusses, is the reversal of civilization to its
primitive conditions. Russell suggests if the Second World War fails to eliminate all signs
of life, still that destruction would take world to the age of barbarism. For in the war,
the major cities and industrial areas would be destroyed and the bacteriological warfare
would destroy crops and cause famine. Russell says there may be a few libraries and
laboratories and scientists. But the people might kill the remaining few scientists, in hope
:of some Golden Age, for
Extreme hopes are born of extreme misery and in such a world hopes could only be
.irrational
The third possibility, according to Russell, is the establishment of a universal government
all over the world. He discusses this idea in more than one ways in which it could occur.
The one is the victory of America, in the Second World War. Other is the victory of
Russia, or the world government, would emerge as a result of mutual agreement. The best
.among these ways is the idea of mutual agreement
Russells view of the world government has been criticized greatly. People have raised
arguments considering it as a Utopian ideal. Most of the people think that such an
alliance cannot be brought peacefully, for no nation would surrender her liberty. Russell
also admits that the chances of world government in a formal ways are extremely remote.
He thinks that a world government would not be formed voluntarily, but it would have to
.be brought about by force
Some object that there is no need of a world government, because the wars are a part of
human history and civilization but still humanity has survived from them. Wars create
heroism and are necessity of life, without which human beings would feel frustrated. To
refute this argument, Russell has given his logical reasoning, that the present condition of
cold war would certainly lead to a dreadful atomic war and eventually it would bring a
complete devastation. And now modern wars are very different from the wars in the past.
;Russell says
There lies before us, if we choose continual progress in happiness, knowledge and
?wisdom. Shall we instead choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels
Then he visualizes the new world after the emergence of either of the two super powers
i.e. Russia and America, as a victor of the war. Russell perceives a secure peace
prevailing in the long run. Though there would be occasional murders and minor revolts
.but in such a state, any large scale rebellion would be out of question
Russell prefers America to control the world government and he has given many reasons
for his preference to America but his preference has no political or ideological basis, but
it totally depends on the probable condition of people under these states. The major
reason to prefer America is that, she respects the values of civilized life like freedom of
thought, freedom of inquiry and humaneness. But on the other hand, in communistic
countries like Russia, there is not liberty for individuals and the government has a strict
:hold on the common masses. Thus Russell says
Its only aim is to promote the mindless repetition of party slogans and to have the
 .ability of shifting sides rapidly, so as to be always on the side {of received opinions
Moreover, there is considerably less orthodoxy in America than in Russia. There,
scientist, authors and philosophers can choose any subject regardless of state interest.
.While in Russia such things are also influenced by official views
Russell suggests yet another way to prevent a horrible war. In his opinion, America would
make an alliance with the British common wealth nations and with other European
nations who want to join them. All the military power, of these countries, and weapons
should be united and then they should declare war on the nation. In this way Russia might
also be agreed to join the alliance just by the threat of war. But still he does not leave the
.possibility of Russian refusal
In such an alliance, there should also be a legal check on the power of the leader, by other
nations, so there would not be a chance of corruption, which is sure to accompany
...Tower. In other cases, it would be such a combination of states
Where force is not a prerogative of private individuals or nations, but is exercised only
.by a neutral authority in accordance with rules laid down in advance
Among the many advantages, of a single world government is that the defence
expenditures of every nation would diminish and by this way human beings would be
.more happy than before
But a little earlier than this, Russells suggestions did not seem to be implemented to the
world. For, China has emerged, as a world power with nuclear weapons and it would
.certainly not like America as the only dominant nation to control both, East and West
But now, after, nine-eleven, once again Russells idea of the world government seems to
be possible, for, America and Britain has started to dominate the poor nations of the
.world, only in order to establish their hold on the world
However, Russells chief concern in all this discussion was his good will and sincere
concern towards peace and survival of mankind. We can surely conclude that he was a
.true optimist, pacifist and humanist

:Points to remember
.The effects of Second World War .1
.Three possibilities .2
.Complete extinction of all human beings .3
.The reversal of civilization to its primitive conditions .4
.Establishment of a universal government .5
.World government an utopian idea .6
.Two super powers of Russia and America .7
.Russells preference for American domination .8
Alliance with British common wealth .9
.Defence expenditures will be diminished .10
 Three Possibilities
Russell believes that, as a result of the next world war, the world will face three
possibilities, one of which will definitely materialize. These three possibilities are: (1) the
end of human life, perhaps of all life on this earth; (2) a reversion to barbarism after a
disastrous fall in the human population of the earth; and (3) the establishment of a single
.world-government possessing a complete control over all the principal weapons of war

The Extinction of the Human Race

The first possibility, according to Russell, may not materialize as a result of the next
world war, unless that war is postponed for a longer time than now seems probable. But if
the next world war is indecisive, and if organized States survive, it, a period of feverish
technical development may begin. With a much greater utilization of atomic energy, it is
possible that radio-active clouds, drifting round the world, may destroy living tissue
everywhere. Although the last survivor may then proclaim himself the emperor of the
universe, his reign will be brief and his subjects will all be rotten dead bodies. This will
mean, of course, the end of the human race. Some people may welcome such a
development but this attitude shows only a bogus heroism. The majority of people would
.like to think of ways to avoid such a catastrophe
Too Pessimistic a View
There is nothing fantastic about the possibility which Russell visualizes here, namely the
extinction of the human race. There has recently been a lot of talk about environmental
pollution. Such pollution can assume menacing proportions, if no safety measures are
taken in time. Pollution by the radioactivity generated on a large scale by nuclear research
can certainly lead to the destruction of this world. However, scientists have already
become alert to this danger, and international conferences are being held to take the
necessary precautions. Russells view about the extinction of the human race is in any
case too pessimistic. This essay was written nearly thirty years ago, and we have now just
twenty years more to complete the twentieth century. It does not seem likely that the end
of the human race will come before the end of the twentieth century through the spread of
.radio-activity in the atmosphere
A Reversion to Barbarism
The second possibility, according to Russell, is a reversion to barbarism as a result of a
scientific world war in which a large majority of human beings will be killed, and only a
small number of people will be left on the earth. All civilization will be destroyed by a
scientific world war, and the few people who survive here and there over the globe will
begin life from almost primitive conditions. A scientific world war will destroy the chief
cities and centres of industry; it will wipe out laboratories and libraries; it will cause
famine resulting from radio-active spray and pestilence resulting from bacteriological
warfare. The great States to which we are accustomed would disintegrate, and the small
.number of survivors would revert to a primitive village economy
 A Strong Basis for the Second Possibility
There is nothing absurd or preposterous about the second-possibility also. A scientific
world war is sure to reduce the human population to a small number and to annihilate all
the progress that mankind has achieved through centuries of hard work and effort. In that
.case, a reversion to barbarism would be a certainty
The Third Possibility
The third possibility is the establishment of a single government for the whole world.
This possibility may be realized in different ways: (1) by the victory of the United States
in the next world war; (2) or by the victory of the Soviet Russia; (3) or by means of an
agreement among the nations of the world. If world-government is established through an
agreement among the nations, another world war may be avoided, but a courageous and
.imaginative statesmanship would be needed for the purpose
A World-Government Not Feasible
The third possibility visualized by Russell seems far-fetched, and therefore unrealistic.
The present temper of the different nations of the world shows no signs at all that a
world-government is possible through a general agreement. And, as for the establishment
of a world-government through the victory of either the United States or Soviet Russia in
the next world war, that too seems out of the question for the simple reason that the next
.world war is sure to destroy the world altogether
A World-Government through Agreement Unlikely
Russell next examines some of the arguments that are used against the project of a single
government for the whole world. The commonest argument is that the idea of a world-
government is Utopian and impossible. Russell accepts this argument if it means that the
establishment of a world-government by means of a general agreement is impossible,
Russell agrees that the mutual suspicions between Soviet Russia and the western
democracies make any general agreement in the near future to be futile. Any-universal
authority to which both sides can agree under the existing conditions is bound to prove
illusory. Such an authority will prove to be as helpless as the UNO has proved. Even the
modest project of an international control over atomic energy has not been found feasible
in view of Russian objections. Thus a world-government, if it has to be established, will
.have to be imposed by force
The Establishment of a World-Government through War
Russell then mentions another argument against the project of a world-government. It
may be asserted that wars have always been fought and that the human race has survived
in spite of them. It may also be asserted that wars provide an opportunity for heroism and
self-sacrifice, and that people will feel frustrated if there are no wars at all. To this
argument Russell replies by pointing out the much greater destruction caused by modern
wars on account of technological developments. Even if the next world war does not
exterminate the human race, it is sure to bring about a kind of reversion to barbarism
which has already been mentioned above. It will then take a very very long time for what
is left of the world to attain any degree of civilization. If things are allowed to drift, the
 conflict between Russia and the western democracies will continue till an atomic war
breaks out. In such a war, western Europe, including Great Britain, will be almost totally
destroyed. If the United States and Soviet Russia survive, as organized States, they will
soon afterwards fight again. If one side wins, it will rule the world and a single
government of mankind will come into existence; if not, mankind will perish. If nations
of the world and their rulers give evidence of a constructive vision, they should take steps
for the establishment of a world-government. But Russell feels that a world-government
cannot be established by friendly negotiations. Force, or a threat offeree, Russell thinks,
will be necessary for the purpose. If a threat of force does not suffice, actual force should
be employed to establish a world-government, says Russell. In other words, Russell
believes that a world-government should be established through a world war in which
.either the United States or Soviet Russia will win the victory
The Beneficial Results of a World-Government
Russell then proceeds to describe the kind of world that will result from the victory won
by the United States or Soviet Russia in the war that they will fight. Whether the United
States wins or Soviet Russia wins, it will be a world in which successful rebellion will be
impossible because the winning side will have a monopoly of the armed forces. The
people of the victorious side will achieve a very high degree of material comfort, and will
be freed from the tyranny of fear. They will become gradually more good-natured, kind-
hearted, and less inclined to persecute. They will, in the course of time, extend the same
privileges to the defeated people. There will then be a true world-state. A world empire of
either the United States or Soviet Russia is therefore preferable to the continuance of the
.present international anarchy
A Russian Victory in War, an Appalling Disaster
Russell next gives us his reason why he would prefer a victory for the United States in
the world war which he anticipates. His reason for siding with the United States is that
there is more respect in that country than there is in Russia for the things that contribute
to a civilized way of life. What he has in mind is freedom: freedom of thought, freedom
of inquiry, freedom of discussion, and humane feeling. If Soviet Russia wins the victory,
all these freedoms would be crushed; education would be reduced to learning the
formulas of communism; opponents and dissidents will be liquidated or imprisoned; and
there will be various other kinds of persecution. Under such a world-government,
science, philosophy, art and literature will be fully controlled by official authorities and
will therefore become narrow. No individual will be allowed to think or even feel for
himself, but each will be a mere unit in the mass. A victory for Russia would, in time,
.make such a mentality world-wide. A Russian victory is therefore an appalling disaster
The Victory of an Alliance of Nations
A victory for the United States would not have such awful consequences. In the first
place, it would not be a victory of the United States alone, but of an alliance in which the
other members would insist upon retaining much of their traditional independence. Thus,
after such a victory, there would still be British culture, French culture, Italian culture and
 .so on
The Freedom Allowed by America
Secondly, America allows considerable individual liberty which is totally absent from
Soviet Russia. In America, a geneticist may hold whatever view of Mendelism he likes to
hold on the basis of the evidence. But in Russia a geneticist must accept the official view.
In America a man may write a book debunking Lincoln. In Russia, if a man writes a book
debunking Lenin, the book would not be published, and the author would be liquidated.
In a world controlled by Russia, intellect must stagnate. Communists despise individual
liberty which, however, is important from the point of view of those who have been
brought up under democratic conditions. Soviet Russia has established a servile State,
with luxury for the few and overworked poverty for the many. Only democracy and free
.information can prevent the holders of power from establishing a servile State
The Formation of an Alliance against the Soviet Union
Russell then comes to the following conclusion: great wars can only be brought to an end
by the concentration of armed forces under a single authority. Such a concentration
cannot be brought about by agreement, because of the opposition of Soviet Russia, but it
must be brought about somehow. The first step is to persuade the United States and
Britain of the absolute necessity for a military unification of the world. The other nations,
of the same way of thinking, can then join this alliance. This alliance should next proceed
.to establish its supremacy, if necessary through a war in which the alliance is sure to win
How to Abolish War
There are now only two fully independent States, America and Russia. These two should
be reduced to one by the establishment of a world-government. Only then can war be
abolished. And if war were abolished, the world would enjoy much greater happiness
through the scientific techniques which are at its disposal. Liberty can exist only if there
are effective laws to control international relations. The first and most difficult step in the
creation of such laws is the establishment of adequate sanctions, and this is possible only
through the creation of a single armed force in control of the whole world. A single armed
.force can exist only if it is controlled by a world-government
Russells Unrealistic Approach to the Problem
This is the only essay in which Russell, the great apostle of reason, himself becomes
unreasonable. It seems to be a case of Homer nodding, that is, a man of great intellect
showing a sign of fatigue or negligence in his reasoning. In the first place, it is strange
that a confirmed pacifist should advocate the establishment of a world-government
through war. However sublime the idea! of a world-government, war is not the means to
it because, as Russell himself suggests at the outset in this essay, the next war will mean a
reversion of what is left of mankind to a state of barbarism. Secondly, how does Russell
assume that the alliance led by the United States is bound to win the war against Russia
and its allies ? And, when this essay was written, China had not become so powerful as it
is today. Nobody can predict what role China might choose for itself. If, contrary to
Russells assessment, Russia were to win the war, it would in Russells own words be an
 appalling disaster. No, war is not the right means to achieve the ideal of a world-
government. In fact, this ideal cannot be achieved. We must be more realistic and think of
avoiding wars in the future by deciding to live in harmony in accordance with the
principle of live and let live. Co-existence is the only formula for the world today, and
the atom bomb, instead of being allowed to destroy the world, should be treated only as a
deterrent to war. The nuclear deterrent: herein lies our only hope, though that also raises
the fear of a continuing arms race which would become necessary to maintain a parity in
.the fighting capability of the two sides

Unpopular Essays, Chapter 3

Chapter 3 (pages 45-55), The Future of Mankind

Barring major unforeseen events, there are three possible fates for the earth by the end of
the 20th Century: (1) human life, and possibly all life, exterminated; (2) return to the
stone age after a massive depopulation; (3) a single world government controlling
.weapons of mass destruction

The next world war wont finish off humanity, but the post-war arms race and further
instability might, through radioactivity. Although the last survivor may proclaim himself
universal Emperor, his reign will be brief and his subjects will all be corpses. With his
death the uneasy episode of life will end, and the peaceful rocks will revolve unchanged
until the sun explodes [pages 45-46]. Maybe this is not such a bad turn of events, but
people dont really believe that even if they say they would rather see the world end
than communism (or capitalism) take over. Such spoken sentiments are harmful, as they
.lessen our commitment to working to avoid the apocalypse

A single world government might arise if either the US or Russia wins the next war, or if
nations voluntarily agree to such a government. A common argument against a world
government is that the prospect is utopian, but those commentators are only considering
the voluntary means of achieving one. Russell concurs that as things now stand, the hopes
for agreement between the two main sides are negligible; therefore, it would have to be
.imposed by force [p. 47]

Why cant the world continue as before, with the occasional war? Technological
development in weaponry has brought a level of destruction such that soon, any major
world war would result in either extermination or depopulation and barbarism. (Russell
foresees that the USSR will soon have lots of nuclear weapons.) Nor can it be hoped that
.for some reason, within the existing nation-state structure, war itself will become history
 Russell claims that a poll indicates that a majority of Americans support world
government but they do not understand the need for it to be established via force or the
threat of force. The side that prevails in an armed struggle will have an irresistible
monopoly of force, leading to a secure peace [p. 49]. The leaders of that society will be
rich and secure, allowing them to be generous to others. So a world government, of
American or Soviet origin, will be preferable to the current international anarchy [p.
50]. But an American-constructed world government will be better, because of the
freedoms that are valued in America. We can see what sort of civilisation the Soviets
would install by looking at what happened to the education system and the middle class
in Poland once it fell under Soviet domination. Within a generation, all independent
thought in Poland could be replaced with jejune communist orthodoxy, and this will also
be the global fate within a Soviet uni-polar world so a Russian victory in the bi-polar
struggle would be an appalling disaster [p. 51]. If America emerges as the victor,
European cultures will not be crushed, nor will be freedom of expression. Soviet control
of the press allows the ruling oligarchy to oppress the masses much more severely than in
.the US, so Soviet social inequalities worsen and harden

The third alternative future outlined above, that of world government, can almost be as
bad as the first two if it involves Soviet domination. The next step is for Britain and the
US to start a military unification, with invitations and inducements to other nations to
join. Once the alliance is large enough, any country that refused to join should be given
an ultimatum: either join or be named an outlaw. Presumably Russia would receive such
an ultimatum, and the war to follow provided it happens quickly enough should still
leave US power intact, and then the military unification can be completed. We could hope
that the ultimatum alone would work, that war would not be necessary but we cannot
.rely upon that

This all sounds gloomy, and it is, but the prospect of a world without wars also holds
great promise; for the first time in 6000 years: a weight will be lifted from the human
spirit, deep collective fears will be exorcised, and as fear diminishes we may hope that
cruelty also will grow less [p. 54]. Without war, poverty could be ended on a global
.scale within a generation [p. 55]

The global monopolization of force is a means, not an end; the end is to set up a system
of laws to govern international relations. If we succeed in establishing such a system, we
will enter a golden age; if we fail, we face utter disaster [p. 55].

Write a complete summary Of Bertrand Russell's essay

"The Future Of Mankind."
Russell begins his essay, "The Future of Mankind," with three possible scenarios for the
future. Note that Russell wrote this essay after World War II and during the rise of the
Cold War. (The Cold War defined the antagonism between the Soviet Union, and their
allies, and the United States, and their allies. The Cold War followed World War II - 1947
- and lasted until 1991 with the dissolution of the Soviet Union.)

Given that a third world war, erupting from the Cold War, was one of Russell's greatest
concerns, his prospects for the future dealt with the possibility of such a war (atomic, no
less) or some way to avoid such a war. If such a war were to occur, Russell supposed the
destruction of human life, and possibly all life, on the planet. Atomic bombs and their
after-effects (radiation clouds, disease, etc.) would decimate and/or eliminate all life.

Russell's second scenario is that the world would revert to a state of barbarism. This too
could result from a widespread atomic world war. The only solace is that such outcome
leaves open the possibility that humans could return to a civilized state. Russell compares
this possibility to the fall of Rome which was followed by a relatively more barbaric time
(notably the Dark Ages) but was followed by a Renaissance and eventually a more
technological and organized world.

Russell's third scenario is the unification of the world under one united power. Russell
adds that such a united power is the most preferable outcome (a more powerful and all-
encompassing authority than, say, the United Nations). Russell notes that as long as there
at least two supremely powerful states (Soviet Union and United States), the threat of an
atomic world war is always possible. And as technology increases, the destructive power
of such a war increases. In other words, the more technologically advanced the world
becomes, the more destructive our wars become; therefore, Russell believed that a unified
world state becomes more and more necessary in order to avoid such a catastrophic war.

Russell hoped that a united world state could be achieved by negotiation and/or the threat
of force but he feared that force would be necessary. He also clearly preferred an
American victory rather than a Russian victory - whether that be the result of diplomatic
relations or the result of a war. He even added that if America were communist and
Russia were capitalist, he would still prefer an American victory because there was more
intellectual and social freedom in America.

Although a united world state does have problems, Russell believes that under such a
state, the threat of war will be lessened or eliminated, leaving humans to put more
attention on human happiness. Although Russell presents gloomy potentials for the
future, he believes that an immeasurably good outcome can emerge from the third
scenario:

What the world most needs is effective laws to control international relations. The first
and most difficult step in the creation of such law is the establishment of adequate
sanctions, and this is only possible through the creation of a single armed force in control
of the whole world. Homework Help > Bertrand Russell

Critically analyze Bertrand Russell's, "The Future of Mankind."

print Print document PDF list Cite

Asked on August 4, 2013 at 2:38 AM by shewa55

like 2 dislike 0

1 Answer

akannan's profile pic

Ashley Kannan | Middle School Teacher | (Level 3) Distinguished Educator

Posted on August 4, 2013 at 3:00 AM

Russell's article assesses where the world stands in the 1950s. He outlines three distinct
possibilities for the world. The first is total nuclear obliteration, while the second is a
devolution into barbarism. The third option would be a dominance of one form of
government. Given the Cold War paradigm in which Russell operated, this would mean a
United States victory or a triumph of the Soviet Union.

In Russell's mind, "The Future of Mankind" results in forging diplomatic and military
alliances with nations in a cooperative manner. Russell believes that if nations are able to
form broad based alliances through both diplomatic and financial inducements, there is a
decreased likelihood of rogue nations threatening the fragile balance of life on the planet.
Russell believes in this collaborative venture as the first phase of ensuring a healthy
future. The second step is being able to use the power of transformation to manipulate
endeavors that make life better for all. In Russell's mind, the forging of alliances and the
reduction in war can lead to a transformative vision where all of the world's problems can
be actively combated:

Unless we can cope with the problem of abolishing- war, there is no reason whatever to
rejoice in laborsaving technique, but quite the reverse. On the other hand, if the danger of
war were removed, scientific technique could at last be used to promote human
happiness. There is no longer any technical reason for the persistence of poverty, even in
such densely populated countries as India and China. If war no longer occupied men's
thoughts and energies, we could, within a generation, put an end to all serious poverty
throughout the world.

If "law, rather than private force" can ensure that liberty is protected and individuals are
able to enjoy the maximum pursuit of liberty in their own worlds, there is a greater
chance for the future of mankind to find happiness and be free from destruction.

Russell's writing in the speech puts him in a uniquely different position amongst other
philosophers. His humanism distinguishes him from the leftist Marxist philosophers who
found that social and material conditions precluded any hope of collaboration. His
pacifism distinguished him from the nationalist thinkers who felt that exceptionalism
should guide thought and action. Russell's ideas in the essay put him as the skeptic of
absolutist dogma and one whose embrace of progressivism and social justice embodied
the essence of hopeful transformation.

Themes, Arguments, and Ideas

LOGICAL ATOMISM

The theory of logical atomism is a crucial tool in Russells philosophical method. Logical
atomism contends that, through rigorous and exacting analysis, languagelike physical
mattercan be broken down into smaller constituent parts. When a sentence can be
broken down no further, we are left with its logical atoms. By examining the atoms of a
given statement, we expose its underlying assumptions and can then better judge its truth
or validity.

Take, for example, the following sentence: The King of America is bald. Even this
deceptively simple sentence can be broken down into three logical components:

1. There exists a King of America.

2. There is only one King of America.

3. The King of America has no hair.

We know, of course, that there is no King of America. Thus the first assumption, or atom,
is false. The complete statement The King of America is bald is untrue, but it isnt
properly false because the opposite isnt true either. The King of America has hair is
just as untrue as the original statement, because it continues to assume that there is, in
fact, a King of America. If the sentence is neither true nor false, what kind of claim on the
truth can it make? Philosophers have debated whether the sentence, in fact, has any
meaning at all. What is clear is that applying the concepts of logical atomism to language
reveals the complexity of the concepts truth and validity.

THE THEORY OF DESCRIPTIONS

The theory of descriptions represents Russells most significant contribution to linguistic

theory. Russell believed that everyday language is too misleading and ambiguous to
properly represent the truth. If philosophy was to rid itself of mistakes and assumptions, a
purer, more rigorous language would be required. This formal, idealized language would
be based on mathematical logic and would look more like a string of math equations than
anything ordinary people might recognize as a language.

Russells theory offers a method for understanding statements that include definite
descriptions. A definite description is a word, name, or phrase that denotes a particular,
individual object. That chair, Bill Clinton, and Malaysia are all examples of definite
descriptions. The theory of descriptions was created to deal with sentences such as The
King of America is bald, where the object to which the definite description refers is
ambiguous or nonexistent. Russell calls these expressions incomplete symbols. Russell
showed how these statements can be broken down into their logical atoms, as
demonstrated in the previous section. A sentence involving definite descriptions is, in
fact, just a shorthand notation for a series of claims. The true, logical form of the
statement is obscured by the grammatical form. Thus, application of the theory allows
philosophers and linguists to expose the logical structures hidden in ordinary language
and, it is hoped, to avoid ambiguity and paradox when making claims of their own.

SET THEORY

The ability to define the world in terms of sets is crucial to Russells project of logicism,
or the attempt to reduce all mathematics to formal logic. A set is defined as a collection of
objects, called members or elements. We can speak of the set of all teaspoons in the
world, the set of all letters in the alphabet, or the set of all Americans. We can also define
a set negatively, as in the set of all things that are not teaspoons. This set would include
pencils, cell phones, kangaroos, China, and anything else thats not a teaspoon. Sets can
have subsets (e.g., the set of all Californians is a subset of the set of all Americans) and
can be added and subtracted from one another. In early set theory, any collection of
objects could properly be called a set.

Set theory was invented by Gottlob Frege at the end of the nineteenth century and has
become a major foundation of modern mathematical thought. The paradox discovered by
Bertrand Russell in the early twentieth century, however, led to a major reconsideration
of its founding principles. Russells Paradox showed that allowing any collection of
objects to be termed a set sometimes creates logically impossible situationsa fact that
threatens to undermine Russells greater, logicist project.

RUSSELLS PARADOX

Russells Paradox, which Russell discovered in 1901, reveals a problem in set theory as it
had existed up to that point. The paradox in its true form is very abstract and somewhat
difficult to graspit concerns the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. To
understand what that refers to, consider the example of the set containing all the
teaspoons that have ever existed. This set is not a member of itself, because the set of all
teaspoons is not itself a teaspoon. Other sets may, in fact, be members of themselves. The
set of everything that is not a teaspoon does contain itself because the set is not a
teaspoon. The paradox arises if you try to consider the set of all the sets that are not
members of themselves. This metaset would include the set of all teaspoons, the set of all
forks, the set of all lobsters, and many other sets. Russell poses the question of whether
that set includes itself. Because it is defined as the set of all sets that are not members of
themselves, it must include itself because by definition it does not include itself. But if it
includes itself, by definition it must not include itself. The definition of this set
contradicts itself.

Many people have found this paradox difficult to fathom, so in philosophy textbooks it is
often taught by analogy with other paradoxes that are similar but less abstract. One of the
most famous of these is the barber paradox. In a certain town, there is a barber who
shaves the men who do not shave themselves. The paradox arises when we consider
whether the barber shaves himself. On one hand, he cant shave himself because hes the
barber, and the barber only shaves men who dont shave themselves. But if he doesnt
shave himself, he must shave himself, because he shaves all the men who dont shave
themselves. This paradox resembles Russells in that the way the set is defined makes it
impossible to say whether a certain thing belongs to it or not.

Russells Paradox is significant because it exposes a flaw in set theory. If any collection
of objects can be called a set, then certain situations arise that are logically impossible.
Paradoxical situations such as that referred to in the paradox threaten the entire logicist
project. Russell argued for a stricter version of set theory, in which only certain
collections can officially be called sets. These sets would have to satisfy certain axioms to
avoid impossible or contradictory scenarios. Set theory before Russell is generally called
nave set theory, while post-Russell set theory is termed axiomatic set theory.