Abstract

The paper constitutes a reply to a recent attack (gull, "bradley's argument against relations," "new scholasticism", xlv) on the conclusions of my earlier article, "the reality of relations" ("new scholasticism", xlv). the main issues are (1) whether russell's solution to the bradleyan argument is question-begging; (2) whether the distinction between the representation and the analysis of a fact can solve bradley's problem; and (3) whether the answer i give to bradley's argument rests on a confusion of three very different issues. i argue, first, that the exegesis of russell which gull proposes in place of mine merely provides a more elaborate statement of the original mistake; secondly, that the distinction between representation and analysis is powerless to answer what i call bradley's argument from scarcity; and thirdly, that the answer i offer to that argument, so far from confounding three very different issues, is clearly addressed to only one of them