Russell. N.s. Vol. 22, no. 1.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
|David Blitz||"Did Russell Advocate Preventive Atomic War
against the USSR?"|
ABSTRACT: Russell's statements in the immediate post-World War II period about war with the Soviet Union have generated considerable controversy. Some commentators interpret his declarations as if he advocated a preventive war against the Soviet Union. To the contrary, Russell advanced a strategy of conditional threat of war with the aim not of provoking war, but of preventing it. However, Russell was unable to satisfy his critics. Despite initial accuracy in his restatements of what he had originally said, Russell erred in later affirmations, lending credence to the erroneous view that he had something to hide.
|Bernard Linsky||"The Substitutional
Paradox in Russell's 1907 Letter to Hawtrey"|
ABSTRACT: This note presents a transcription of Russell's letter to Hawtrey of 22 January 1907 accompanied by some proposed emendations. In that letter Russell describes the paradox that he says "pilled" the "substitutional theory" developed just before he turned to the theory of types. A close paraphrase of the derivation of the paradox in a contemporary Lemmon-style natural deduction system shows which axioms the theory must assume to govern its characteristic notion of substituting individuals and propositions for each other in other propositions. Other discussions of this paradox in the literature are mentioned. I conclude with remarks about the significance of the paradox for Russell.
|I. Grattan-Guinness||"Victoria, Lady Welby's Manuscripts at York University, Toronto"|
|Roma Hutchinson||"Index to The Collected Stories of Bertrand Russell"|
|Peter H. Denton||"`Well Wide of the Mark': Response to Stone's Review of The ABC of Armageddon"|
|Stefan Andersson||Review of Arthur Jay Klinghoffer and Judith Apter Klinghoffer, International Citizens' Tribunals|
|Philip L. Tite||Review of Ray Perkins, Jr., ed., Yours Faithfully, Bertrand Russell|
|Louis Greenspan||Review of Jean Cocks, Passion and Paradox: Intellectuals Confront the National Question|