Essay Sample: Russell's Argument on Monadistic and Monadic Relations

5 pages
1116 words
Boston College
Type of paper: 
This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

The Principles of Mathematics states that a proposition is composed of either a concept or other times it constitutes a term. Occurrence of a proposition as a concept comes by when it is predicative. This is when the entity referred to occurs as a fraction of an allegation in relation to the various things in a term. On the other side, a proposition comes by as a term when its replacement yields the same characteristics as those of the initial entity. This means that the new replacement remains just like the former proposition.

Russell viewed concept as those entities that are in a position to pass as concepts. For example, various planets are terms sharing the same concept of revolving round the sun. Another example relates to humankind. Various individuals are termed as human (which is a term), sharing the same concept of humanity. Russell argument was that if there is to be an entity that cannot occur like a term, there has to be a proposition that is true to support this.

Russell regarded that a certain individual, say a, and b, stands in a certain relation R. he viewed this as larger complexes that exist naturally and facts that cannot be disputed. For example in the individuals a and b, alongside relation R they can be said to be a complex. The main reason behind Russells reasoning is his belief in the existence of classes. He viewed these classes as various objects that are aggregated together thus components of their propositions. He stressed on the existence of a complex, (say that of a, b, and R), even when there is no proof or fact to clearly prove that a, and b shares a relation R.

Russell argues that relations that occur as transitive and symmetrical tend to equal. For example when a= b, and b=a, denotes that a=a. he explains that reflexives, the fundamental property of relation, ensures that entity a holds onto itself ( pg 221). For this to hold, he explains that a class should exist and the definition in the class should include only extension of that particular class in regards to the transitive symmetrical.

He further adds that all propositions are composed of a predicate and a subject. This opinion however confronts proposition dealing with relations. This confrontation can be dealt two ways with when it presents itself, by either monistic approach or monadistic approach (pg 223). Given aRb, the monadistic approach will separate them into two that is ar, and br. The monistic approach however does not separate the two. It views the relation as a single component that is poised by both a, and b. this he says can be represented as (ab) r. The monadistic view is that between a nd b, one of them is larger. He argues to assert that one of them is greater, does not bring out the intended meaning. This is because b can also be bigger than b (pg 2240. the theory does not show any difference between the two making the theory unreliable since no analysis has been carried out to reveal the different qualities that one possesses and the other lacks. To Russell, this fact highlights the contradiction and weakness of the monadistic theory hence its condemnation. He further adds that the relation cannot exist if one of them is not available since both of them are essential and of the same importance.

The monistic theory asserts that a preposition that is relational aRb, can be broken down in such a way that the preposition holds that is a, and b. this makes it possible for it to be denoted as (ab)r (pg 226). the advocates of this theory, the whole relation consists of various diversities in characteristics among other features. The diversities and differences synthesize occurs internally. Rusell argues that whether a is greater compared to b, or, whether b is greater to a, there is existence of symmetry since both of them are part of the whole. He however agrees that monostic approach has not been able to explain the distinction that exists between a relation that is of asymmetrical type and its converse.

Russell disagreed with the principle of identity involving indiscernible which says that the various differences that exist in things comes by because of concepts that are different that applies to them. He argued that the logic behind the differences in these things is the diversity in numerical factors. He further explains that all relations in prepositions to be relational and external. This, he said is what differentiates a complex with the sum of the qualities that comprise it. Russell took a view about relations that is intensional which makes it possible for an asymmetrical relation, differentiate with its converse. In a parlance that is contemporary, relations such as taller than, and less than tend to be none co-extensive. This makes it possible for them to differentiate in relations extensionally full.

Betrand Rusell failed to see how the relations of the non-monadic type could reduce to become of the monadic type. Russell tried to explain that in an aRb relation, where b and a related to each other by the relation R, the two entities have to be broken into two. When the relation is broken, the emerging parts are Ar1, and bR2, is referred as monadistic view. This is opposed to monistic view, which suggests that R encompasses (a b).

Russell argues that the reasoning behind relation possessing characteristics of a complex is that the propositions a, and b normally tend to of un-ordered nature. Bearing in mind the un-orderly manner of the complexes that is (a b), the complex of ab has to be the same as that of ba. To analyze relations in a general manner, this explanation is inadequate. This is because some relations portray asymmetrical features. For example, some relations have to be aRb as opposed to bRa. For example, two individuals say John, and Harry height has to analyze differently. John is taller compared to harry infers that harry is not taller in comparison with john. To explain this, the relation of taller than between the two, has to analyze separately since they cannot analyze as one complex. This is line with Russell argument. A relation aRb, has to be broken into two to pave way for analysis, that is, separate entities (Ar1, and bR2). This does not mean that Russell viewed relation as complexities that can be broken into properties of the entities making up a relation. For example, in the taller than asymmetrical relation, R1, and R2 are still related.


Ch 26 asymmetrical Relations-Principles of Mathematics,Bertrand Russell. Ch 26 Asymmetrical Relations-Principles of Mathematics,Betrand Russell.N.p., Web. 09 Apr.2017.

Have the same topic and dont`t know what to write?
We can write a custom paper on any topic you need.

Request Removal

If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the website, please click below to request its removal: