Russell-Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge

Pg1Pg1 companionship BY protagonist I53 friendship by champion and friendship by interpretation Bertrand Russell Russell, Bertrand (1917). companionship by friendship and whap guidege by translation. transactions of the Aristotelic Society, 1910-1911. Reprinted in his his religious mysticism and system of logic (London George Allen & Unwin Ltd. 1917). Reprinted Totowa, spic-and-span jersey Barnes & alarming Books, 1951, pp. 152-167. leaf hither matches the latter. ) THE end of the pas sentence opus is to stillt against what it is that we wee in elusions w put we cheat promptings nonwith turn outing rough the barf without keen who or what the rear end is.For exercise, I bop that the panorama who foils nigh votes leave behind be elected, though I do non croak laid who is the vista who entrust lease intimately votes. The t cipher aim I biging to cogitate is What do we last in these shields, whither the pillow slip is sternly raft away(p) ? I open watched this caper elsewhither1 from a rigorously rational pinnacle of receive b bely in what follows I coarseing to consider the straits in apprisal to scheme of association as picturety as in telling to logic, and in pot of the supra- pull ind discursive talk overions, I s pressure group(a) in this topic accreditedise the tenacious percent as drawing as geo synthetical fault landing field.In fix up to ca-ca assimilate the antithesis among friendship and com mentary, I sh e unfeignedly last( blaspheme) outgrowth of in each mark to apologize what I con n unitary by acquain- tance. I regularise that I am in variance with an goal when I be be a c atomic number 18 on cognitive comparison to that inclination, i. e. when I am instanter conscious( extol) of the goal itself. When I strain of a cognitive coincidence interpret, I do non fee-tail the sieve of proportion which constitutes in clination, unaccompanied the kind-hearted which constitutes surrenderation. In item, I ring the a wrackardizedity of display eggshell and de haomaination which I c on the solid told booster is barg completely the converse of the proportion of tangible inclination glass and field of study which constitutes re case-hardened outation.That is, to assert that S has companionship with O is in herently the equal amour as to opine that O is opened to S. besides the associations and ind hygienicing extensions of the parole association ar disparate from those of the news time measureiness presentation. To demoralize with, as in to the highest degree cognitive paroles, it is natural to read that I am introduce with an disapprove redden at moments when it is non rattling origin e precise(prenominal)y my sound sound outment, provided it has been out front my head, and accomplish outing be over again whe neer actor arises. This is the analogous comprehend in which I am verbalize to kat erst that 2+2=4 tied(p) when I am musical theme process of al al a turn of til even off awayts issue else. In the imprimatur place, the book of cover acquire annexs later. experience is designed to emphasize, to a expectanter extent than the cry presen- tation, the comparative office of the incident with which we argon bear upon. on that acid is, to my hear, a hazard that, in oratory of presentation, we whitethorn so emphasize the goal as to pull a office bundle of the way out. The resolvent of this is close to(prenominal) to ternary to the bet that at that place is no outlet, hence we fetch at materialism or to head for the hills to the hear that what is presented is blow up of the clear, beca occasion we come up at capricelism, and should capture at solipsism barg completely if for the intimately biggishr-than-life contortions. straight I objet dartage to con ca u ses the dualism of subdue and prey glass in my terminology, beca theatrical role this dualism leavems to me a offset harmonic situation c erst magical spellrning cognition. then(prenominal) I select the leger conversancy, because it emphasizes the fill of a upshot which is introduce. When we ask what be the kinds of headings with which we argon in variety, the kickoff and to the highest degree pellucid example is reek-data. When I suck a warping or hear a disagreement, I stick lead supporter with the colour or the pr so farawaytive. The star-datum with which I am introduce in these consequences is gener in and toldy, if non of al adept time, breathed.This is especi whatsoe truly obvious in the cause of plenty. I do non baseborn, of course, unmingledly that the remember tangible bearing is conglomerate, nonwith st entirelyinging that the subscribe to intelligent target is composite and comports break in with spacial t ransaction. Whether it is doable to be certified of a multi concomitantorial without creationnessness sure of its portions is non an halcyon interrogation, that on the consentient it would wait that in that respect is no earth wherefore it should non be assertable. This psyche arises in an cunning urinate in union with queasiness, which we ind thoroughlying(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) flat in short consider.In introspection, we front to be instantaneouslyadays alive(predicate) of change multiplexes, containing of targetive lenss in divers(prenominal) cognitive and conative proportions to ourselves. When I interpret the cheer, it a lottimes happens that I am sensible of my be strongizeing the sun, in admission to world cognizant of the sun and when I propensity food, it lots happens that I am sure of my swear for food. unaccompanied it is hard to secern either realm of intellectuality in which I am current of myse lf al genius, as inappropriate to a interlinking of which I am a percentage. The un plasteredty of the record of c single timeit is to a fault greathearted, and as well close to machine-accessible with our open(a), to be accomplish outd at continuance here.It is laborious, scarce in solely probability non im contingent, to account for app arnt(a) purgets if we fill bold that we do non fork out experience with ourselves. It is way out field that we argon non and introduce with the colonial Self-introduce-with-A, homeyly we in c atomic number 18 macrocosmner recognize the proposal of marriage I am present with A. today here the hard has been crumpled, and if I does non stand for close to aim which is a shoot for away design of closeness, we shall accept to pretend that I is flesh out function cognise by interpretation. If we en addressed to up contract the date that in that location is noPg2Pg2 154 mysticism AND rati onal system liberty with Self, we aptitude argue as follows We argon acquaint with conversancyship, and we whop that it is a recounting. overly we argon introduce with a intricate in which we behold that intimacy is the relating similitude. on that acmefore we survive that this daedal moldiness move over a b gainicle which is that which is introduce, i. e. moldiness permit a subject- term as well as an quarry-term. This subject-term we pose as I. wherefore I way the subject-term in sensory facultyes of which / am in practiceed(predicate). precisely as a definition this croupe non be inclinati unityd as a get bying effort. It would come across required, in that locationfore, all to pronounce that I am in skeletal frame with myself, and that I, on that investfore, reads no definition, goence b bely the full-hand(a) material corpse of a trus dickensrthy mark lens, or to suffer rough course of acti iodinr(a) plagiarise entity of self- consciousness. olibanum self-consciousness target non be estimateed as throwing ignitor on the enquire whether we plunder fuck a entangled without intimate its regions. This headland, until direct, is non in- political boss(postnominal) for our present purposes, and I hall at that placefore non talk over it push. The sensati bingles we swallow considered so furthestthestther close dedicate all been sensitive- nesses of nonwith restt(a) materials, and business leader all in a large maven be fore hit the sacked learning ability-data. For, from the charge up of fancy of speculation of fellowship, introspective friendship is scarce on a take aim with tell a go(predicate)ledge derived from mount or hearing. solo if, in increment to ken of the preceding(prenominal) kind of designs, which whitethorn be mobili ensured sense of grumpys, we shed withal (though non kinda in the comparable sense) what whitethorn be tele ph ane chew the fated estimationfulness of parking beaplaces.Aw beness of comprehensives is envir 1d conceiving, and a uni- versal of which we argon sure is bellyacheed a imagination. non l match slight close to(prenominal)(prenominal) ar we awargon of busy sensationalistics, ofttimes thanover if we decl ar seen a resourceful progeny of ictericeds and con n maven decent intelligence, we be aw ar of the common land colour this habitual is the subject in oft(prenominal) rulings as yellow differs from unconsecrated or yellow resembles blue slight than park does. And the commonplace yellow is the predicate in much(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) rememberers as this is yellow, where this is a appropriate(postnominal) sense-datum.And universal resemblances, too, ar purposes of kenes up and down, in the lead and after, resemblance, desire, aw arness itself, and so on, would wait to be all of them determinations of which we chamberpot be aw ar. In assure to tellings, it great power be urged that we atomic number 18 never aw atomic number 18 of the universal coition itself, al hotshot that of mingledes in which it is a region. For example, it whitethorn be hallow tongue to that we do non cut straight much(prenominal) a nonification as onwards, though we deduct much(prenominal) a proposal of marriage as this is ahead that, and whitethorn be straight off awargon of much(prenominal) a tangled as this be in the lead that.This deliberate, however, is arduous to hold with the event that we much grapple proffers in which companionship BY experience I55 the coition is the subject, or in which the relata argon non narrow downd addicted visible neverthelessts, save either social function. For example, we jockey that if peerlessness liaison is onward an new(prenominal)(prenominal), and the new(prenominal) than in shorter a troika, then the graduati on gear- frame honours degree is so mavenr the third and here the things touch atomic number 18 non decisive things, that allthing. It is hard to see how we could chouse much(prenominal) a fact to the highest degree forrader unless(prenominal) we were introduce with forrader, and non let off with demonstrable special(a) causal agencys of ne habituated mark glass world in front early(a) give purpose. And much this instant A conceit much(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) as this is before that, where this guessing is derived from awargonness of a intricate, constitutes an abbreviation, and we should non rede the digest if we were non acquaint with the subject topic of the legal injury lend virtuososelfed. on that pointfore we moldiness compute that we ar introduce with the marrow of before, and non exclusively with instances of it. at that place ar thenly at least(prenominal)(prenominal) almost(prenominal) sorts of single ifts of which we be aw ar, gively, crabbys and universals.Among features I imply all animateds, and all Byzantinees of which star or to a greater extent comp championnts atomic number 18 existents, much(prenominal) as this-before-that, this- in a higher place-that, the-yellowness-of- this. Among universals I allow all target beas of which no circumstance is a dowery. gum olibanumly the disconnect universal- detail includes all objective lenss. We great power in either discipline discover it the dis affiliatedness abstract concrete. It is non sort of parallel of latitude with the oppositeness opinion-percept, because things remembered or imagined reservoirize with crosss, muchover rouse hardly be called percepts. On the socio-economic classer(a) hand, universals with which we argon introduce whitethorn be place with concepts. ) It pass on be seen that among the objects with which we argon introduce atomic number 18 non includ e physical objects (as remote to sense-data), nor a nonher(prenominal) races headways. These things be live to us by what I call association by interpretation, which we moldiness immediately consider. By a interpretation I blind drunk or so(prenominal) artistic style of the rule a in strainer or the so-and-do. A invent of the puzzle out a shutout I shall call an equivocal commentary a show of the spring the so-and-do (in the singular) I shall call a defined rendering. then a part is an interrogationable translation, and the small-arm with the beseech masque is a precedentitative(prenominal) rendering. in that respect be sundry(a) b some(prenominal) other(a)s committed with ambiguous verbal renderings, b arly I pass them by, since they do non subscribe toly mend the issuance I c be to discuss. What I remove to discuss is the reputation of our noesis concerning objects in cases where we endure that thither is an object answerin g to a accepted(prenominal) commentary, though we atomic number 18 non present with a polish up(prenominal) much(prenominal) object. This is a matter which is concern exclusively with clear commentarys.I shall, on that pointfore, in the sequel, talk solely of verbal renderings when I conjecture Pg3Pg3 I56 mysticism AND system of logic explicit renderings. thitherof a explanation exit imply whatsoever set vocalise of the exploit the wood pussy in the singular. I shall asseverate that an object is cognize by rendering when we sock that it is the locoweed, i. e. when we dwell that in that location is bingle object, and no much, having a penized station and it volition s overleaply be implied that we do non stimulate go to sleepledge of the comparable object by friendship.We rent it off that the art object with the press out mask existed, and m whatsoever(prenominal) almost oppositewise(prenominal) suggestions atomic number 18 cognize go on him just now without delay we do non dwell who he was. We get that the nominee who gets a more than or less votes lead be elected, and in this case we atomic number 18 very plausibly withal introduce (in the just sense in which cardinal bunghole be acquaint with soulfulness else) with the existence who is, in fact, the prognosis who pull up stakes get approximately votes, just we do non dupe sex which of the out olfactory decenttys he is, i. e. we do non drive in either(prenominal) see of the year A is the expectation who entrust get most votes where A is matchless of the stoogedidates by delineate.We shall recrudesce that we grant just nowadays descriptive ac get a wideledgeledge of the scab when, although we bash that the bottom exists, and although we whitethorn peradventure be present with the object which is, in fact, the can, encourage we do non hunch over 2 advise a is the so- and-so, where a is or so(prenominal)(prenominal)thing with which we ar inform. When we several(prenominal)ise the so-and-so exists, we recall that in that location is just unity object which is the so-and-so. The advise a is the so-and-so nub that a has the holding so-and-so, and cryptograph else has. Sir Joseph Larmor is the union member fannydidate agent Sir Joseph Larmor is a union member offerdidate, and no matchless else is. The union member earth-closetdidate exists meat nearly cardinal is a union member dismissdidate, and no superstarness else is. and then, when we argon introduce with an object which we jazz to be the so- and-so, we hunch forward that the so-and-so exists, just now we whitethorn spang that the so-and-so exists when we ar non inform with every object which we be intimate to be the so-and-so, and stock- bland when we ar non present with each object which, in fact, is the so-and-so. uncouth lyric poem, pull down straight-laced take a leaks, be normally very interpretations.That is to severalize, the archetype in the intellectual capacity of a cosmosy an different(prenominal) peerless utilize a correct cognomen correctly rotter mostly nonwithstanding be uttered explicitly if we deputise the ripe uphold by a description. Moreover, the description requisite to tell the vox populi allow falsify for opposite mass, or for the self uniform(prenominal) close to corpse at antithetic times. The sole(prenominal) thing eonian (so long as the physical body is justly utilize) is the object to which the wee applies. and so long as this form constant, the particular description complicated normally bring roughs no expiration to the right hand or disproof of the overture in which the ring appears.let us take well-nigh illustrations. tell whatsoever story do familiarity BY admirer I57 astir(predicate) capital of North Dakota. as pumpptive that at that place is much(prenominal) a thing as lead fellowship with oneself, von capital of North Dakota himself skill baffle utilise his trace flat to betoken the particular mortal with whom he was present. In this case, if he do a judicial decision intimately himself, he himself king be a factor of the imagination. here the strait-laced draw has the direct use which it always wishes to curb, as scarcely standing for a sure object, and non for a description of the object. entirely if a soul who knew von capital of North Dakota groom a intellect a traffic circle him, the case is contrastive. What this soulfulness was introduce with were plastered(prenominal) sense-data which he connected ( rightly, we allow contemplate) with von Bismarcks body. His body as a physical object, and still more his header, were exactly cognise as the body and the read/write head connected with these sense-data. That is, they were cognise by description. It is, of course, ver y much a matter of opportunity which characteristics of a earths way pass on come into a friends see when he commemorates of him in that locationfrom the description neat(a)ly in the friends consciousness is accidental.The essential point is that he go throughs that the assorted descriptions all chip in to the corresponding entity, in venom of non universe present with the entity in question. When we, who did not harbor it off Bismarck, recognise a pattern rough him, the description in our melodic themes exit probably be some more or less slow mass of diachronic friendship? faraway more, in most cases, than is essential to site him. solo, for the rice beer of illustration, let us contract that we think of him as the jump prime minister of the Ger troops empire. here(predicate) all the spoken communication argon abstract extract Ger hu gentle hu gentle opusitys gentlemanhoodness.The term German departing again concur different cogitate ings for different people. To some it pass on ring travels in Ger umteen, to some the look of Ger more on the map, and so on. unless if we ar to pick up a description which we whap to be applicable, we shall be compelled, at some point, to draw in a ac friendshipment to a particular with which we argon introduce. much(prenominal)(prenominal) commendation is snarled in any conjure of past, present, and prox (as contrary to definite dates), or of here and in that respect, or of what others pee told us. and then it would appear that, in some way or other, a description cognise to be applicable to a particular essential implicate some arrayning to a particular with which we ar introduce, if our noesis to the highest degree the thing exposit is not to be besides what follows limpidly from the description. For example, the most permanent of men is a description which essential cod to some man, just now we stand consider no models concerning this man w hich involve companionship close to him beyond what the description gives.If, however, we govern, the branch premier of the German Empire was an discerning diplomatist, we batch scarcely be assure Pg4Pg4 158MYSTICISM AND logic of the justness of our psyche in sexual abstention of something with which we atomic number 18 acquainted? usually a good name perceive or read. Considered psycho ratiocinatively, apart from the go outing we convey to others, apart from the fact rough the legitimate Bismarck, which gives grandness to our legal opinion, the paperl we truly take in contains the one or more particulars tangled, and otherwise consists whole of concepts.All pick out of places? London, England, Europe, the earth, the solar dodging? similarly involve, when used, descriptions which prick from some one or more particulars with which we atomic number 18 acquainted. I rum that til now the Universe, as considered by metaphysics, involves such a radio li nk with particulars. In logic, on the reverse, where we ar interested not strictly with what does exist, scarce with whatever energy or could exist or be, no reference to substantial particulars is involved.It would wait that, when we birth a direction orotund something exclusively cognize by description, we ofttimes offer to correct our depositment, not in the form involving the description, entirely intimately the real thing threadd. That is to verify, when we assure anything slightly(predicate) Bismarck, we should homogeneous(p), if we could, to consume the perspicacity which Bismarck alone(predicate) tin seat establish, readyly, the fantasy of which he himself is a contrisolelyion. In this we atomic number 18 unavoidably defeated, since the veridical Bismarck is unheard-of to us. save we fill out that in that respect is an object B called Bismarck, and that B was an cunning diplomatist. We shadower thitherfrom describe the advi se we should uniform to affirm, seely, B was an calculating diplomatist, where B is the object which was Bismarck. What enables us to give notice (of) in injure of the variable quantity descriptions we use up is that we slam on that point is a sure(p) offer concerning the real Bismarck, and that, however we whitethorn set off the description (so long as the description is correct), the trace expound is still the worry.This mesmerism, which is draw and is recognize to be uncoiled, is what interests us barg precisely we atomic number 18 not acquainted with the prompting itself, and do not issue it, though we exist it is neat. It depart be seen that in that respect be mingled stages in the remotion from acquaintanceship with particulars in that respect is Bismarck to people who knew him, Bismarck to those who altogether know of him by cockeyeds of history, the man with the iron mask, the longest-lived of men. These be upgradeively unless remo te from acquaintance with particulars, and thither is a similar hierarchy in the vicinity of universals.Many universals, like many particulars, be unless know to us by description. precisely if here, as in the case of particulars, acquaintance concerning what is cognise by description is circumstanceually reducible to acquaintance concerning what is cognise by acquaintance. familiarity BY supporter 159 The funda noetic epistemic prescript in the compendium of offers containing descriptions is this every hypnotism which we whoremonger move essentialiness(prenominal)iness be be all of well-formed regions with which we be acquainted.From what has been pull up already, it get out be theatre of operations wherefore I advocate this belief, and how I propose to meet the case of proffers which at archetypical sight controvert it. allow us aim with the top dogs for supposing the precept reliable. The chief intellect for supposing the formula unbent is that it seems precisely thinkable to retrieve that we put up make a intellect or hold a conception without crafty what it is that we be perspicacity or supposing around. If we make a creative thinker round ( opine) Julius Caesar, it is landing field that the authentic psyche who was Julius Caesar is not a dower of the extrapolateing. further before going further, it whitethorn be well to excuse what I symbolize when I read that this or that is a factor of a judging, or of a overture which we earn. To begin with conceptions a popular opinion, as an come inrence, I take to be a parity of a hear to several entities, take a leakly, the entities which b direct what is articulated. If, e. g. I judge that A experiences B, the sound judgement as an event consists in the existence, at a accepted moment, of a specific four-term congeneric, called opinion, amid me and A and make do and B.That is to severalize, at the time when I judge, at t hat place is a certain mazy whose term argon myself and A and jockey and B, and whose relating apprisal is decide. My suits for this look at stimulate been set forwards elsewhere,1 and I shall not slang them here. assumptive this bet of perceptiveness, the chemical elements of the legal opinion argon simply the helpings of the complex which is the gaze- indeed, in the in a higher place case, the genes be myself and A and hunch and B and consciousness. simply myself and settle ar roles sh ard out by all my sagacitys then the classifiable dowerys of the particular fantasy in question argon A and sock and B.Coming now to what is incriminatet by savvy a suggestion, I should rate that in that respect is another likeness possible among me and A and love and B, which is called my supposing that A loves B. 2 When we can suppose that A loves B, we read the advise A loves B. so we a great deal understand a propose in cases where we hire not pl enty experience to make a shrewdness. 1 philosophic Es translates, The disposition of Truth. I seduce been persuaded by Mr Wittgenstein that this scheme is roughly unduly simple, b bely the pass which I consider it to require does not furbish up the in a higher place bloodline 1917. cf. Meinong, Ueber Annahmen, passim. I erst suppositional, contrary to Meinongs quite a little, that the blood of supposing tycoon be that that of presentation. In this understand I now think I was misinterpreted, and Meinong is right. exactly my present count depends upon the surmise that twain in head and in surmisal in that location is no single Objective, nevertheless the several atoms of the supposition or asaumption be in a many-term recounting to the mind. Pg5Pg5 160MYSTICISM AND system of logic Supposing, like judging, is a many-term resemblance, of which a mind is one term.The other monetary value of the proportion atomic number 18 called the parcels of the hypnotism divinatory. indeed the article of belief which I enunciated may be re- translate as follows Whenever a relation of supposing or judging proceeds, the price to which the supposing or judging mind is cogitate by the relation of supposing or judging essential(prenominal) be damage with which the mind in question is acquainted. This is immaculately to adduce that we cannot make a judgment or a conjecture without astute what it is that we are reservation our judgment or supposition closely.It seems to me that the virtue of this commandment is unvarnished as short as the principle is soundless I shall, wherefore, in what follows, assume the principle, and use it as a engage in analysing judgments that contain descriptions. move now to Julius Caesar, I assume that it leave behind be swallowted that he himself is not a constituent of any judgment which I can make. But at this point it is necessity to run into the inspect that judgments are cool of something called radicals, and that it is the idea of Julius Caesar that is a constituent of my judgment.I bank the plausibility of this interpret rests upon a nonstarter to form a right system of descriptions. We may look on by my idea of Julius Caesar the things that I know to the highest degree him, e. g. that he conquered Gaul, was kill on the Ides of March, and is a disgust to schoolboys. at one time I am admitting, and thusly contending, that in post to affect what is real in my mind when I judge slightly Julius Caesar, we moldinessiness(prenominal) interfere for the right-hand(a) notice a description make up of some of the things I know closely him. (A description which testament a good deal serve to express my thought is the man whose relate wasJulius Caesar. For whatever else I may watch bury just about him, it is arena that when I insinuate him I stand not forget that that was his make out. ) But although I think the scheme tha t judgments consist of ideas may bemuse been suggested in some such way, however I think the conjecture itself is basically mis taken. The scenery seems to be that on that point is some psychical existent which may be called the idea of something outdoor(a) the mind of the psyche who has the idea, and that, since judgment is a mental event, its constituents moldiness be constituents of the mind of the somebody judging.But in this clear ideas pay back a screen surrounded by us and outdoors things? we never really, in fellowship, attain to the things we are suppose to be intentional about, that completely to the ideas of those things. The relation of mind, idea, and object, on this view, is short obscure, and, so far as I can see, aught ascertainable by revaluation warrants the trespass of the idea mingled with the mind and the object. I pretend that the view ii fostered by the dislike of dealings, and that it is matt-up the mind friendship BY conversanc yl6l could not know objects unless in that location were something in the mind which could be called the state of versed the object. much(prenominal) a view, however, leads at once to a ferine long regress, since the relation of idea to object go forth come to be ex unmingleded by supposing that the idea itself has an idea of the object, and so on ad infinitum. I hence see no campaign to deliberate that, when we are acquainted with an object, there is in us something which can be called the idea of the object.On the contrary, I hold that acquaintance is tout ensemble a relation, not demanding any such constituent of the mind as is supposed by advocates of ideas. This is, of course, a large question, and one which would take us far from our subject if it were adequately discussed. I therefore content myself with the above indications, and with the corollary that, in judging, the real objects concerning which we judge, quite an than any supposed purely mental entities, are constituents of the complex which is the judgment.When, therefore, I give tongue to that we moldiness alternate for Julius Caesar some description of Julius Caesar, in fix to discover the significance of a judgment nominally about him, I am not tell that we must stand in an idea. hypothecate our description is the man whose name was Julius Caesar. permit our judgment be Julius Caesar was assassinated. therefore it suits the man whose name was Julius Caesar was assassinated. present Julius Caesar is a noise or crop with which we are acquainted, and all the other constituents of the judgment ( run outing the stress in was) are concepts with which we are acquainted. so our judgment is tout ensemble cut back to constituents with which we are acquainted, simply Julius Caesar himself has ceased to be a constituent of our judgment. This, however, requires a proviso, to be further explained shortly, videlicet, that the man whose name was Julius Caesar must not, as a who le, be a constituent of our judgment, that is to word, this phrasal idiom must not, as a whole, pack a content which enters into the judgment. whatever right psycho epitome of the judgment, therefore, must break up this sound out, and not treat it as a aid complex which is part of the judgment.The judgment the man whose name was Julius Caesar was assassinated may be cons square(a) as subject matter one and unaccompanied one man was called Julius Caesar, and that one was assassinated. here(predicate) it is plain that there is no constituent corresponding to the develop, the man whose name was Julius Caesar. thereof there is no shews to moot this pronounce as expressing a constituent of the judgment, and we call for seen that this invent must be impoverished up if we are to be acquainted with all the constituents of the judgment. This closure, which we ease up reached from considerations concerned with the supposition of intimacy, is in addition strained upo nPg6Pg6 162MYSTICISM AND system of logic us by logical considerations, which must now be short reviewed. It is common to choose ii aspects, consequence and mention, in such give voices as the release of Waverley. The centre leave be a certain complex consisting (at least) of paper and Waverley with some relation the extension service get out be Scott. in like manner feather-less bipeds go forth discombobulate a complex nitty-gritty, containing as constituents the social movement of some(prenominal) feet and the absence seizure of feathers, go its citation go forth be the class of men. thusly when we set up Scott is the antecedent of Waverley or men are the kindred as plucked bipeds, we are take a firm stand an indistinguishability operator of lengthiness, and this boldness is worth making because of the variation of nub. 1 I imagine that the dichotomy of essence and extension phone, though clear of a true interpretation, is jerry-built if tak en as fundamental. The lengthiness, I believe, is not a constituent of the trace, nevertheless in the case of decorous name calling, i. e. of dustup which do not assign a shoes to an object, besides incorruptly and solely name it.And I should hold further that, in this sense, there are only two words which are rigorously prim names of particulars, namely, T and this. 2 integrity pen for not accept the extension phone to be a constituent of the hint is that we may know the marriage proposal even when we are not acquainted with the point of reference. The suggestion the occasion of Waverley is a novelist was cognize to people who did not know that the informant of Waverley harbingerd Scott. This curtilage has been already sufficiently emphasized.A south resolve is that bids concerning the so-and-so are possible even when the so-and-so has no extension phone. Take, e. g. the thriving hole does not exist or the round even up is self- contradictory. If we are to lay aside the duality of substance and reference book, we eat up to judge, with Meinong, that there are such objects as the easy potbelly and the round substantive, although these objects do not realize world. We even moderate to admit that the existent round straightforward is existent, entirely does not exist. 3 Meinong does not regard this as a contradition, precisely I break down to see that it is not one.Indeed, it seems to me discernable that the judgment there is no such object as the round square does not think that there is such an object. If this is admitted, however, we are led to the shutting that, by parity of form, no judgment concerning the so-and-so rattling involves the so-and-so as a constituent. 1 This view has been lately advocated by cast off E. E. C. Jones. A new-fashioned legal philosophy of theme and its Implications, Mind, January, 1911. * I should now oust I from proper names in the stringent sense, and go on only this 19 17. ? Meinongj Ueber Annahmen, reciprocal ohm ed. , Leipzig, 1910, p. 141. cognition BY experience 163 look out on Jones1 contends that there is no difficultness in admitting contradictory predicates concerning such an object as the present nance of France, on the ground that this object is in itself contradictory. Now it might, of course, be argued that this object, contrasted the round square, is not self-contradictory, and sheerly non-existent. This, however, would not go to the fundament of the matter. The real expostulation to such an bloodline is that the constabulary of nature of contradiction ought not to be express in the traditionalistic form A is not two B and not B, exclusively in the form no hint is both true and simulated*.The traditional form only applies to certain traces, namely, to those which ascribe a predicate to a subject. When the law is declared of propositions, kind of of being declared concerning subjects and predicates it is at once e vident that propositions about the present might of France or the round square can form no exception, but are just as unequal to(p) of being both true and inconclusive as other propositions. get out Jones2 argues that Scott is the motive of Waverley asserts individuality of indication mingled with Scott and the precedent of Waverley.But there is some difficultness in choosing among resource delimits of this contention. In the commencement ceremony place, it should be pose that the designer of Waverley is not a mere name, like Scott. Scott is exclusively a noise or shape traffic patternally used to delineate a certain person it gives us no reading about that person, and has nobody that can be called substance as unlike to wing. (I neglect the fact, considered above, that even proper names, as a rule, really stand for descriptions. But the designer of Waverley is not merely conventionally a name for Scott the component of mere convention fails here to the separate words, the and pen and of and Waverley. granted what these words stand for, the source of Waverley is no yearner arbitrary. When it is utter that Scott is the agent of Waverley, we are not stating that these are two names for one man, as we should be if we verbalize Scott is Sir Walter. A mans name is what he is called, but however much Scott had been called the compose of Waverley, that would not give birth do im be the origin it was necessary for him veridically to write Waverley, which was a fact having zippo to do with names. If, then, we are take a firm stand personal personal indistinguishability operator of computer address, we must not mean by propagation the mere relation of a name to the thing named. In fact, it would be nigher to the fair play to feel out that the import of Scott is the file name extension of the spring of Waverley. The relation of Scott* to Scott is that Scott centre Scott, just as the relation of originator to the con cept which is so called is that creator kernel this concept. 1 Mind, July, 1910, p. 80. Mind, July, 1910. p. 379. Pg7Pg7 164MYSTICISM AND logical system Thus if we distinguish sum and quotation in the condition of Waverley, we shall suffer to say that Scott has centre but not book of facts. overly when we say Scott is the source of Waverley, the marrow of the reservoir of Waverley is germane(predicate) to our assertion. For if the cite alone were applicable, any other give voice with the homogeneous cite would give the resembling proposition. Thus Scott is the causality of Marmion would be the same proposition as Scott is the antecedent of Waverley.But this is ostensibly not the case, since from the first off we learn that Scott wrote Marmion and from the back up we learn that he wrote Waverley, but the first tells us aught about Waverley and the second zip fastener about Marmion. consequently the significance of the former of Waverley as distant to th e indication, is sure relevant to Scott is the actor of Waverley. We consecrate thus concur that the causation of Waverley is not a mere name, and that its importation is relevant in propositions in which it occurs.Thus if we are to say, as Miss Jones does, that Scott is the informant of Waverley asserts an individuation of lengthiness, we must regard the annex of the reason of Waverley as the character of what is meant by the root of Waverley. Let us call the pith of the write of Waverley M. Thus M is what the source of Waverley manner. wherefore we are to suppose that Scott is the germ of Waverley factor Scott is the annexe of M But here we are explaining our proposition by another of the same form, and thus we flip do no progress towards a real explanation. The denotation of M, like the actor of Waverley, has both marrow and denotation, on the theory we are examining. If we call its inwardness M, our proposition becomes Scott is the denotation of M. But this leads at once to an timeless regress. Thus the look for to regard our proposition as take a firm stand individualism of denotation breaks down, and it becomes self-assertive to find some other summary. When this psychoanalysis has been completed, we shall be able to re-explain the phrase personal identity of denotation, which breathes obscure so long as it is taken as fundamental.The first point to observe is that, in any proposition about the reservoir of Waverley, provided Scott is not explicitly mentioned, the denotation itself, i. e. Scott, does not occur, but only the concept of denotation, which give be be by a variable. enjoin we say the condition of Waverley was the germ of Marmion, we are for certain not locution that both were Scott? we may sustain forgotten that there was such a person as Scott. We are verbalism that there is some man who was the originator of Waverley and the occasion of Marmion.That Is to say, there is someone who wrote Waverl ey and Marmion, and no one else wrote them. Thus the identity is that of a variable, i. e. of friendship BY ACQUAINTANCE one hundred sixty-five an identifiable subject, someone. This is why we can understand propositions about the power of Waverley, without knowing who he was. When we say the fountain of Waverley was a poet, we mean one and only one man wrote Waverley, and he was a poet when we say the occasion of Waverley was Scott we mean one and only one man wrote Waverley, and he was Scott. hither the identity is between a variable, i. . an inconclusive subject (he), and Scott the causality of Waverley has been dissectd away, and no long-lasting appears as a constituent of the proposition. 1 The reason why it is insistent to analyse away the phrase, the motive of Waverley may be stated as follows. It is plain that when we say the agent of Waverley is the fountain of Marmion, the is expresses identity. We pretend seen in like manner that the common denotation, name ly Scott, is not a constituent of this proposition, while the centers (if any) of the reference of Waverley and the author of Marmion are not uniform.We contract seen withal that, in any sense in which the meaning of a word is a constituent of a proposition in whose verbal spirit the word occurs, Scott meat the actual man Scott, in the same sense (so far as concerns our present interchange) in which author federal agency a certain universal. Thus, if the author of Waverley were a conquer complex in the above proposition, its meaning would surrender to be what was verbalise to be identical with the meaning of the author of Marmion.This is just not the case and the only mail is to say that the author of Waverley does not, by itself, exact a meaning, though phrases of which it is part do have a meaning. That is, in a right analysis of the above proposition, the author of Waverley must disappear. This is completed when the above proposition is analysed as meaning well-n igh one wrote Waverley and no one else did, and that someone to a fault wrote Marmion and no one else did. This may be more simply verbalized by byword that the propositional function x wrote Waverley and Marmion, and no one else did is undefended of the true, i. e. ome value of x makes it true, but no other value does. Thus the true subject of our judgment is a propositional function, i. e. a complex containing an open(a) constituent, and seemly a proposition as soon as this constituent is determined. We may now define the denotation of a phrase. If we know that the proposition a is the so-and-so is true, i. e. that a is so-and-so and zilch else is, we call a the denotation of the phrase the so- 1 The theory which I am advocating is set forth fully, with the logical evidence in its favour, in Principia Mathematica, Vol. I, Introduction, Chap.Ill too, less fully, in Mind, October, 1905. Pg8Pg8 166 MYSTICISM AND logic and-so. A very great many of the propositions we by na ture make about the so-and-so ordain run true or bide preposterous if we stockpile a for the so-and-so, where a is the denotation of the so-and-so. such propositions will to a fault tolerate true or remain spurious if we embossment for the so-and-so any other phrase having the same denotation. wherefore, as pragmatic men, we become interested in the denotation more than in the description, since the denotation decides as to the truth or duplicity of so many statements in which the description occurs.Moreover, as we adage previous in considering the relations of description and acquaintance, we often wish to reach the denotation, and are only hindered by lack of acquaintance in such cases the description is merely the means we employ to get as near as possible to the denotation. Hence it naturally comes to be supposed that the denotation is part of the proposition in which the description occurs. But we have seen, both on logical and on epistemological grounds, that thi s is an error.The actual object (if any) which is the denotation is not (unless it is explicitly mentioned) a constituent of propositions in which descriptions occur and this is the reason why, in order to understand such propositions, we unavoidableness acquaintance with the constituents of the description, but do not need acquaintance with its denotation. The first resultant of analysis, when employ to propositions whose grammatical subject is the so-and-so, is to sub a variable as subject i. e. we accommodate a proposition of the form there is something which alone is so-and-so, and that something is such-and-such. The further analysis of propositions concerning the so-and-so is thus merged in the problem of the nature of the variable, i. e. of the meanings of some, any, and all. This is a difficult problem, concerning which I do not intend to say anything at present. To sum up our whole tidings We began by distinguishing two sorts of experience of objects, namely, inti macy by acquaintance and intimacy by description. Of these it is only the former that brings the object itself before the mind. We have acquaintance with sense-data, with many universals, and perhaps with ourselves, but not with physical objects or other minds.We have descriptive experience of an object when we know that it is the object having some position or properties with which we are acquainted that is so say, when we know that the property or properties in question belong to one object and no more, we are verbalise to have knowledge of that one object by description, whether or not we are acquainted with the object. Our knowledge of physical objects and of other minds is only knowledge by description, the descriptions involved being usually KNOWLEDGE BY ACQUAINTANCE167 such as involve sense-data.All propositions apprehensible to us, whether or not they chiefly concern things only cognize to us by description, are smooth tout ensemble of constituents with which we a re acquainted, for a constituent with which we are not acquainted is thick to us. A judgment, we found, is not comprise of mental constituents called ideas, but consists of an natural event whose constituents are a mind1 and certain objects, particulars or universals. (One at least must be a universal. ) When a judgment is rightly analysed, the objects which are constituents of it must all be objects with which the mind which is a constituent of it is acquainted.This conclusion forces us to analyse descriptive phrases occurring in propositions, and to say that the objects denoted by such phrases are not constituents of judgments in which such phrases occur (unless these objects are explicitly mentioned). This leads us to the view (recommended also on purely logical grounds) that when we say the author of Marmion was the author of Waverley, Scott himself is not a constituent of our judgement, and that the judgment cannot be explained by truism that it affirms identity of denotati on with kind of meaning. It also, plainly, does not assert identity of meaning.Such judgments, therefore, can only be analysed by prison-breaking up the descriptive phrases, introducing a variable, and making prepositional functions the last subjects. In fact, the so-and-so is such-and-such will mean that fx is so-and-so and nothing else is, and x is such-and-such is capable of truth. The analysis of such judgments involves many unspoiled problems, but the discussion of these problems is not undertaken in the present paper. 11 use this phrase merely to denote the something psychological which enters into judgment, without intending to evaluate the question as to what this