Conclusion

Abstract

I would like to end by mentioning some of the broader conclusions we may be able to derive from my examination of Russell’s relationship to the Controversy. First, I think it is important to begin by stressing that it was no philosophically simple and direct link that Russell had with the British Empiricists of the Early Modern period, as some have thought. That is, in particular, his philosophy of the external world, and related issues of perception, were not simply a direct descendent and response to the Empiricists of old. Rather, a more fine-grained view arises when one considers the fact that Russell was directly and philosophically engaged with various views taken by his contemporaries, especially the Edwardian philosophers, who had made some significant refinements, advancements and alterations to the Empiricist tradition. Some of these refinements were homegrown, others were made in involved interaction with related, but different traditions. So for example, the ‘sensations’, ‘ideas’, and sensible objects of the Empiricists, are actually, as we have seen, conceptually from ‘sense-data’ and ‘sensibilia’, which are real and existent physical appearance. With this in mind, I would also recommend caution, therefore, in simply pointing to some superficial similarities between Russell’s sensibilia, for instance, and John Stuart Mill’s possible and actual sensations.