Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-04T09:27:12.493Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Critical Notice: Bertrand Russell's The Analysis of Matter: Its Historical Context and Contemporary Interest

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

William Demopoulos
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Western Ontario
Michael Friedman
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Illinois at Chicago

Extract

The Analysis of Matter is perhaps best known for marking Russell's rejection of phenomenalism (in both its classical and methodological forms) and his development of a variety of Lockean representationalism–-Russell's causal theory of perception. This occupies Part 2 of the work. Part 1, which is certainly less well known, contains many observations on twentieth-century physics. Unfortunately, Russell's discussion of relativity and the foundations of physical geometry is carried out in apparent ignorance of Reichenbach's and Carnap's investigations in the same period. The issue of conventionalism in its then contemporary form is simply not discussed. The only writers of the period who appear to have had any influence on Russell's conception of the philosophical issues raised by relativity were Whitehead and Eddington. Even the work of A. A. Robb fails to receive any extended discussion;1 although Robb's causal theory is certainly relevant to many of Russell's concerns, especially those voiced in Part 3, regarding the construction of points and the topology of space-time. In the case of quantum mechanics, the idiosyncrasy of Russell's selection of topics is more understandable, since the Heisenberg and Schrödinger theories were only just discovered. Nevertheless, it seems bizarre to a contemporary reader that Russell should have given such emphasis2 to G. N. Lewis's suggestion that an atom emits light only when there is another atom to receive it–-a suggestion reminiscent of Leibniz, and one to which Russell frequently returns. In short, the philosophical problems of modern physics with which Russell deals seem remote from the perspective of post-positivist philosophy of physics.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Grover Maxwell Memorial Conference on Bertrand Russell's Philosophy of Science, June, 1982.

References

REFERENCES

Carnap, R. (1929), Der logisches Aufbau der Welt. Berlin: Schlachtensee Weltkreis-Verlag.Google Scholar
Goldfarb, W. (1979), “Logic in the Twenties: The Nature of the Quantifier”, Journal of Symbolic Logic 44: 351–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mach, E. [1897] (1959), Analysis of Sensations and the Relation of the Physical to the Psychological: New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Maxwell, G. (1968), “Scientific Methodology and the Causal Theory of Perception”, in Problems in the Philosophy of Science, Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Maxwell, G. (1971), “Structural Realism and the Meaning of Theoretical Terms”, in Analyses of Theories and Methods of Physics and Psychology, Radner, Michael and Winokur, Stephen (eds.). Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 8. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Newman, M. H. A. (1928), “Mr. Russell's Causal Theory of Perception”, Mind n.s. 37: 137–48.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1978), Meaning and the Moral Sciences. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1981), Reason, Truth and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1964), “Implicit Definition Sustained”, Journal of Philosophy 61: 7173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1969), “Ontological Relativity”, in Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, B. (1914a), Our Knowledge of the External World as a Field for Scientific Method in Philosophy. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1914b), “The Relation of Sense-Data to Physics”, Scientia.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1919), Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1927), The Analysis of Matter. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1948), Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1968), The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell, vol. 2. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Schlick, M. [1918] (1925), General Theory of Knowledge. Translated by A. E. Blumberg and H. Feigl. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Schlick, M. (1979), “Experience, Cognition and Metaphysics”, (1926), and “Lectures on Form and Content”, (1932), in Collected Papers, vol. 2. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Winnie, J. (1967), “The Implicit Definition of Theoretical Terms”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 18: 223–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winnie, J. (1977), “The Causal Theory of Space-Time”, in Foundations of Space-Time Theories, Earman, John et al. (eds.). Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 4. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1922), Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar