BR TO DAN SULLIVAN, 23 MAY 1960
BRACERS 130891. TLS. Internet print
Proofread by K. Blackwell

from: The Earl Russell, O.M., F.R.S.,
<letterhead>
Plas Penrhyn,
Penrhyndeudraeth,
Merioneth.1
23 May, 1960.

Dear Mr. Sullivan,

I must apologise humbly in acknowledging that the book that you sent me called The Experience Universe has now come to light, having been unfortunately mislaid. I have now read it, but I am somewhat puzzled as to what to think of it. There is a great deal of the detail with which I am completely sympathetic — for example, what you say about free will and determinism,. There is, however, a point in your discussion of causation which does not seem to me valid. You suggest that the effect can be inferred from the cause rather than vice versa, and you give the instance of a heap of dust which once was a statue. But, conversely, nobody would infer from a lump of Carrara marble that it was going to be a statue. I am not sure that I get the drift of your general position and, if I do, I find that I cannot agree with it. The whole conception of context, which seems fundamental in your system, is, to my mind, vague; but I feel that perhaps you intended it to be so and are suspicious of attempts at precision. I think, also, that it is possible to lay too much stress upon individual experience. This, however, is a difficult matter which turns largely upon the function of sentences containing the word “some” or the word “all” — e.g., “Some of the men I have never heard of were called Smith”. I find another difficulty, which is that you dismiss the concept “truth”, but continue to employ the concept “knowledge”, and I do not see how knowledge can be defined without mentioning truth. Near the very end, you suggest, rather tantalizingly, an “outline of further development”, and I am puzzled as to how this further development follows from your theory. Your Man-Thing puzzles me completely, as it seems to have purposes and to be much the same as what is usually called “God”. I am hesitant to offer these remarks as criticisms, because I feel that your purpose in philosophizing is different from mine and therefore different results are to be expected.

Yours sincerely,
<signed> Bertrand Russell
Bertrand Russell

P.S.: You say that mathematical logic should only be employed where number or quantity is involved. The main point of mathematical logic is to extend mathematical methods beyond this narrow region.

• 1

  [document] Proofread against an image of the original letter. The postscript from “quantity” to the end comes from the typed carbon at BRACERS 3230.