Russell: The Journal of Bertrand Russell Studies

January 28, 2009 (12:22 pm) G:\WPData\TYPE2802\russell 28,2 051red.wpd russell: the Journal of Bertrand Russell Studies n.s. 28 (winter 2008–09): 171–90 The Bertrand Russell Research Centre, McMaster U. issn 0036-01631; online 1913-8032 eviews A RELATIONAL DISPUTE Sébastien Gandon iufz/zphier / U. Blaise Pascal 63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France sgandon@orange.fr Stewart Candlish. The Russell/Bradley Dispute and Its SigniWcance for TwentiethCentury Philosophy. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. Pp. xix, 235. isbn 978-0-230-50685-5. £49.99; us$84.95 (hb). Candlish’s book aims at giving a “fair” description of the notorious Russell/ Bradley dispute, that is, a more balanced one than the version that is usually told. The standard account is the one given by Russell, and, as Russell was a party of the debate, it is no surprise that he seriously misconstrued Bradley’s arguments. Attempting to set the historical record straight, Candlish then opposes Russell’s description of the dispute. The author is quite clear, however, on the fact that he does not himself endorse the Idealistic point of view (p. xi). The two Wrst chapters of the book are introductory: the Wrst one is a presentation of the stereotypical picture that the author intends to demolish, while the second is an outline of Bradley’s metaphysics. Chapters 3 and 4 are devoted to a confrontation between Russell and Bradley’s theories of judgment and truth. Chapters 5 and 6 are dedicated to a rehabilitation of Bradley’s writings about relation. In these four chapters, Candlish attempts to show that Russell’s arguments against Bradley were not as devastating as they are supposed to be, and that Bradley’s insights were quite powerful—so much so that they have been rediscovered by some later philosophers, such as Wittgenstein, for instance. The concluding chapter is an attempt to explain the decline of monistic idealism after Bradley. Candlish does not only aim at oTering a “fair” account of the Russell/Bradley dispute. This goal is extended by a more general plea for the introduction of an historical perspective in analytic philosophy. According to Candlish, “our implicit acceptance of a distorted version of philosophy’s recent past has serious consequences ” (p. 19): one of them is that, by misunderstanding our own history, we “misunderstand ourselves and the nature of what we are about” (ibid.); another is that, by being deprived of any way to connect what we do in philosophy January 28, 2009 (12:22 pm) G:\WPData\TYPE2802\russell 28,2 051red.wpd 172 Reviews with what some of the philosophers of the past have done, “we may, as a result, fall under the impression that only we, and those obviously like us, are really doing philosophy, at least as it ought to be done” (ibid.). From this perspective, Russell’s confrontation with Bradley seems to represent a rather good topic: not only does it epitomize a turning-point in Russell’s intellectual evolution and in the emergence of the new tradition, but it also shows how easily the new and victorious analytic philosophy has misconstrued its own history. If I entirely share Candlish’s conviction about the necessity of introducing an historical perspective in analytical philosophy, I am not convinced by Candlish’s own reconstruction of the dispute. In a nutshell, what I Wnd very useful in the book is all that concerns Bradley, and some of the parts devoted to Russell (especially, the analysis of his theory of judgment). What I do not agree with is, Wrst, Candlish’s way of doing history of philosophy; second, his treatment of Russell’s works; and third, his general conception of the use of logic in philosophy . Candlish really succeeds in expounding to the modern eye both the coherence of Bradley’s thought, and the diUculty of grasping it. His analysis of the role Bradley gave to “intellectual satisfaction” (pp. 26–7, 33) and to the “principles of suUcient reason” (pp. 46–7) is very enlightening—it explains why Bradley, while endorsing a kind of methodological scepticism, denied that ultimate contingencies were given in experience (p. 48). Candlish also does a great job of presenting...