Philosophical Studies

, Volume 139, Issue 2, pp 209–212 | Cite as

Soames on Russell’s logic: a reply

Article

Abstract

In “What is History For?,” Scott Soames responds to criticisms of his treatment of Russell’s logic in volume 1 of his Philosophical Analysis in the Twentieth Century. This note rebuts two of Soames’s replies, showing that a first-order presentation of Russell’s logic does not fit the argument of the Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy, and that Soames’s contextual definition of classes does not match Russell’s contextual definition of classes. In consequence, Soames’s presentation of Russell’s logic misrepresents what Russell took to be its technical achievement and its philosophical significance.

Keywords

Russell Logic Soames Classes 

References

  1. Kremer, M. (2005). Review of Philosophical Analysis in the Twentieth Century, by Scott Soames. Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. Retrieved December 5, 2006, from http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id = 4061.Google Scholar
  2. Pincock, C. (2005–2006). Review of Philosophical Analysis in the Twentieth Century, by Scott Soames. Russell, 25, 167–172.Google Scholar
  3. Proops, I. (2006). Soames and the metaphysics and epistemology of Moore and Russell. Philosophical Studies, 129, 627–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Russell, B. (1969). Our Knowledge of the External World (1st ed. 1914, 2nd ed. 1926) London: Unwin Brothers.Google Scholar
  5. Russell, B. (1956). The philosophy of logical atomism. Lectures read in 1918. In R. C. Marsh (Eds.), Logic and knowledge. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  6. Russell, B. (1924). Introduction to mathematical philosophy. New York: The MacMillan Co.Google Scholar
  7. Sainsbury, R. M. (2006). Scott Soames, Philosophical Analysis in the Twentieth Century: Volume 1: The Dawn of Analysis. Philosophical Studies, 129, 637–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Soames, S. (2003). The dawn of analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.s Vol. 1 of Philosophical analysis in the twentieth century, 2 vols. 2003.Google Scholar
  9. Soames, S. (2006). What is history for? Reply to critics of The Dawn of Analysis. Philosophical Studies, 129, 645–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Whitehead, A. N., & Russell, B. (1935). Principia Mathematica (3 vols. 2nd ed. 1925) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations