Gulberk Koc Maclean

There is currently a lively debate in the philosophy of mind literature which employs different versions of what is called “Russellian monism” in explaining how we know the essence of phenomenal properties, such as the way it feels like to see a blue sky. This paper argues that Russell’s theory of descriptions (1905) along with my interpretation of Russell’s neutral monist ontology (1940 onwards) provides an adequate account of our conceptual knowledge of phenomenal qualities, without taking these qualities to belong to a sui generis ontological category. On my interpretation of Russell’s neutral monist theory, our concepts, be they phenomenal, psychological, physical, material or neuroscientific do not reveal any ontological intrinsic nature of the qualities that make up the events (complexes) that constitute all of reality, including human minds. All concepts are translucent; they reveal some features of reality, but not all. Introspection on our phenomenal concepts, which I define in terms of definite descriptions, reveals only certain structural properties of phenomenal events. Introspection on phenomenal concepts does not reveal the neutral nature of phenomenal qualities (of phenomenal events). All qualities (whether internal or external to a mind) are of a neutral kind, not on the ground that we can be acquainted with the neutral intrinsic nature of reality, but on the ground that taking this reality to be of a neutral kind provides the best explanation of the success and coherence of our various epistemological inquiries.

In The Analysis of Matter (1927) Bertrand Russell constructs point-instants from events. During the writing of the manuscript, he encountered a problem with the initial definition of a point-instant and revised the definition accordingly in the published version. My principal aim is to show that the problem was brought to his attention by F.P. Ramsey. Secondly, I explain the reason why Russell investigates, and consequently endorses, a different method of construction of point-instants in Human Knowledge (1948), even though he was able to overcome the difficulties involving the construction of point-instants in The Analysis of Matter..

Bertrand Russell's Bundle Theory of Particulars presents and evaluates Russell's arguments for two competing theories on the nature of particulars at different stages in his career: the substratum theory of particulars (1903-1913) and the bundle theory of particulars (1940-1948). Through its original focus on Russell's little known metaphysics in the later part of his career, this study explains why Russell's theory of particulars is relevant today. It argues that a Russellian realist bundle theory is indeed the best explanation of similarities and differences that we observe around us thanks to the ontological economy such a theory provides and its strength and completeness as a theory of the nature of reality. Tackling the major criticisms levelled against the realist bundle theory - the problem of individuation, the problem of necessity, and the problem of analyticity - this study presents and defends a tenable Russellian bundle theory which can answer the objections. Bertrand Russell's Bundle Theory of Particulars is a novel and significant contribution to Russell scholarship.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Social and Moral Aspects of the WarBertrand Russell and Introduced by Andrew G. BoneAmong nine loose-leaf folders of typed transcriptions of Russell's History of Western Philosophy lectures at the Barnes Foundation1 are two copies of a fourteen-page stenographic record of a political talk he gave there on 2 March 1941.2 The bulk of this significant new accrual to the Russell Archives, bearing as it does on Russell's most successful philosophical work, could stimulate much further research and textual study. But his isolated Barnes lecture, about the politics of American neutrality, Nazi Germany's brutal and expansionist dictatorship, and the causes and possible consequences of the war against it, is also of considerable interest.The transcription reads more like detailed notes than a verbatim account, and there is no evidence that Russell approved this text.3 The stenographer initially recorded Russell in the third person, dispensed with this device before the second [End Page 52] paragraph, but then occasionally returned to it.4 There is also more enumeration of Russell's points than he would have supplied in a prepared script. Even the title may not be his: there is nothing in the text on any social changes wrought by the war. But this title has been retained in the absence of a more plausible alternative in a short report of the speech (quoting sixteen sentences) in the next day's Philadelphia Evening Bulletin.5 Russell's hour-long address on the "Social and Moral Aspects of the War" appears to have been the only occasion when he "laid philosophy aside"6 at the Barnes Foundation. It was delivered on a Sunday to an audience of 160 students (and possibly some invitees, although none are mentioned in the newspaper article), sandwiched between two of his weekly philosophical lectures (on Socrates and Sparta7) in the series scheduled for each Thursday.In opening his case for the United States joining the Allied war effort, Russell challenged the arguments for the "policy of conciliation" which, by his own recent admission in the New York Times,8 he had earlier endorsed. Published two weeks before Russell spoke on a similar topic at the Barnes Foundation, this 2,000-word letter to the editor served as a very detailed and public renunciation of the pacifist viewpoint—neutrality for national governments combined with non-resistance for individuals—which Russell had promoted in Which Way to Peace? (1936) and continued to condone after the Munich Agreement (September 1938) and even the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia (March 1939).Yet Russell the "relative political pacifist"9 also admitted in this most programmatic statement of his prewar position that "In other times and other circumstances, I should be prepared to consider gains and losses, and to concede that war might be worth while" (WWP, pp. 151–2).That moment had obviously arrived and may have done so already when on 15 October 1939 Russell confided to Constance Malleson that his passionate desire for a British victory made a "thorough-going pacifism difficult" (ra Rec. Acq. 596). But six months later he still did "not feel sufficiently sure of the opposite to say anything publicly by way of recantation"—before adding in this letter to Gilbert Murray that "it may come to that" (21 April 1940, ra Rec. Acq. 71g). It clearly did shortly afterwards—when the "phoney war" in Western Europe was dramatically ended by the invasion of France and the [End Page 53] Low Countries. On 13 May Russell asked the editor of the New Statesman and Nation to notify its readers that he had abandoned his once strongly held pacifist convictions.10In his lecture to the Barnes Foundation, Russell turned next to the defence of American non-intervention by Robert M. Hutchins (see n. 16 below)—which he had already critiqued in the New York Times. Although rather precariously situated as a resident alien in the United States, Russell was hardly circumspect about pushing a policy that so sharply divided American opinion.11 He also listed the faults of the League of Nations and the most grievous diplomatic mistakes made since the end of the last war and the fatally...

The question I will discuss in this paper is whether and in what sense Bertrand Russell’s later works such as Inquiry into Meaning and Truth (1940) and Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits (1948) are logical atomist. Even though logical atomism is preserved as a research method in Russell’s later metaphysical and epistemological works, I will show that logical atomism as a metaphysical thesis is not preserved for the following reasons: (1) In Russell’s later work, the atoms of reality do not include particulars, whereas it is essential to the logical atomist metaphysics that there are unrepeatable atoms as ultimate kinds of reality. (2) The metaphysical structure of simple facts is that universal qualities are in compresence relations; the logical atomist metaphysics, however, requires a metaphysical structure whereby particulars exemplify universal qualities and relations. (3) Furthermore, the metaphysical structure of reality is a causal structure. In contrast, the logical atomist metaphysics requires that the structure of reality is a logical structure. (4) Finally, there are no logical facts in Russell’s later works. The logical atomist ontology, on the other hand, posits logical facts to correspond to true negative propositions, general propositions, and existential propositions.

This chapter will argue that due to a lack of genuine consent, some of Russell’s practices in his romantic/sexual relationships are morally objectionable according to his own normative theory (utilitarianism) and these practices are intellectually objectionable according to his post-1913 meta-ethics (expressivism) and his understanding of rationality. On utilitarian grounds, Russell’s actions would maximize pleasure and minimize pain for all the parties affected by the relationship if the authenticity of his partners’ consent were maintained either by a more or less equal social and political standing of the partners or, failing that, by the powerful partner’s exercise of the virtue of restraint; neither of these conditions was satisfied in Russell’s relationships with Vivien Eliot or Helen Dudley. On expressivist grounds, the expressions of desires upon which Russell’s romantic/sexual practices were based, such as the disregard for the humanity of women, conflict with his calls for world peace based on a concern for the well-being of humanity.