BR TO OLIVER STRACHEY, 4 FEB. 1912
BRACERS 55602. AL. McMaster
Proofread by K. Blackwell

Trin. Coll.
4 Feb. ’121

Dear Oliver

I have been meaning to answer your two letters ever since I got them. I am not sure that I fully understand them, but I will do my best.

There are, it seems to me, conclusive reasons why some relations must be universals. Take “I am in my room” and “You are in your room”. There must be something in common between the two in’s. If you say they resemble each other, either the resemblance is particular or it is universal. If it is particular, it must resemble other resemblances: thus the endless regress drives you ultimately to admit a relationa of resemblance which is identical in two different complexes. Cf. Princ. of Mathcs. §55 and “relations of universals and particulars” pp. 8–10. I don’t see that your letters attack this argument. I agree with you that the difference between particulars and universals is that the former can only be subjects; this is the conclusion of my Aristn. paper. I don’t really know what your particular relation is. You say “A loves B” means “the relation between A and B is an instance of love”; at least I gather you mean this. But “the relation between A and B” is nonsense; there are an infinite number of relations between A and B. What you mean is “a relation between A and B”. Then I ask myself what is meant by a relation between A and B; obviously a relation which relates A and B. Your view is that it is logically impossible for a relation which relates A and B also to relate C and D. This involves, when you consider it, the view that a relation between A and B is not a constituent of the fact consisting of A and B so related; for if it were a separate constituent, not involving A and B essentially, there could be no reason why it should not relate C and D. Thus what you call the particular relation is in fact the complex, since it essentially involves A and B. Thus your view is really that the fact that A loves B is not capable of analysis, and is really not properly to be called a complex. Your view, as applied to such simple complexes, is not logically refutable. You must say: Here is a simple entity, called “A’s love for B”; this has certain relations to A and B and love, which make us say that it expresses the fact that the relation of love relates A and B, altho’, strictly, the relation of love does not enter into it. In fact, love is not a relation, because it never relates things; it is a predicate of certain facts.b If you still want to avoid relations, you must say:

• 1

  [document] Proofread against the original letter, which lacks at least a concluding leaf. Barbara Halpern’s note with the letter states that the rest of it is untraceable.

Textual Notes

• a

  relation after deleted relation

• b

  facts above deleted complexes