Journal of the History of Philosophy

NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS 393 A Reply To Professor Sard There was once a philosopher named "Sard" Who said Russell played an illogical card But Russell's point about "o~" cuts to the bone, and unfortunately for him, the mistake that's displayed Turns out to be Sard's very own. Though Sard's point is apparently well-taken, it turns upon a particular interpretation of the phrase "there are more things in heaven ... than are dreamed of in your philosophy." Russell clearly interprets this to mean: "'It is possible to dream of at least one thing not in heaven (or earth)." Thus, taking all the things in heaven and earth collectively, it is possible to dream of at least one thing not. belonging to the set. Sard interprets the claim to mean, however, that there are things other than what Russell dreams of, namely "'~o" which exist in heaven. Though this is true, it is consistent with Russell's refutation of Seafle, and not a counter instance to it. Russell is thus not committing a fallacy, given his probable interpretation of the above phrase. AVRUM STROLL University of California, San Diego ...