Space,Space, Time Time and and the the Space,Space, Time Time and and the the CategoriesCategories CategoriesCategories FinalFinal Lectures Lectures on onMetaphysics Metaphysics FinalFinal Lectures Lectures on onMetaphysics Metaphysics 1949-501949-50 1949-501949-50

by byby by byby JohnJohn Anderson Anderson JohnJohn Anderson Anderson ChallisChallis Professor Professor of Philosophy of Philosophy ChallisChallis Professor Professor of Philosophy of Philosophy UniversityUniversity of Sydney of Sydney 1927-1958 1927-1958 UniversityUniversity of Sydney of Sydney 1927-1958 1927-1958

IntroductionIntroduction by D.by M. D. ArmstrongM. Armstrong IntroductionIntroduction by D.by M. D. ArmstrongM. Armstrong

EmeritusEmeritus Professor Professor of Philosophy of Philosophy EmeritusEmeritus Professor Professor of Philosophy of Philosophy UniversityUniversity of Sydney of Sydney UniversityUniversity of Sydney of Sydney

EditedEdited by Creagh by Creagh Cole Cole EditedEdited by Creagh by Creagh Cole Cole SeniorSenior Research Research Fellow Fellow SeniorSenior Research Research Fellow Fellow UniversityUniversity of Sydney of Sydney UniversityUniversity of Sydney of Sydney

SYDNEY UNIVERSITY PRESS SYDNEY UNIVERSITY PRESS Print on Demand Service Print on Demand Service SETIS at the University of Sydney Library SETIS at the University of Sydney Library University of Sydney University of Sydney www.sup.usyd.edu.au www.sup.usyd.edu.au

Digitised from manuscripts held in the University of Sydney Archives of lectures Digitised from manuscripts held in the University of Sydney Archives of lectures delivered at the University 1948-50. delivered at the University 1948-50.

© 2007 Sydney University Press © 2007 Sydney University Press

Introduction Introduction © 2007 D. M. Armstrong © 2007 D. M. Armstrong

Reproduction and Communication for other purposes Reproduction and Communication for other purposes Except as permitted under the Act, no part of this edition may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or Except as permitted under the Act, no part of this edition may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or communicated in any form or by any means without prior written permission. All requests for reproduction or communicated in any form or by any means without prior written permission. All requests for reproduction or communication should be made to Sydney University Press at the address below: communication should be made to Sydney University Press at the address below:

Sydney University Press Sydney University Press Fisher Library Fisher Library University of Sydney University of Sydney NSW Australia 2006 NSW Australia 2006

E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

ISBN 978-1-920898-62-5 ISBN 978-1-920898-62-5

Designed and Printed in Australia at the University Publishing Service Designed and Printed in Australia at the University Publishing Service University of Sydney University of Sydney

Table of Contents Table of Contents

Foreword to the John Anderson Series i Foreword to the John Anderson Series i Preface and Note on the Text iii Preface and Note on the Text iii

Introduction by D. M. Armstrong vii Introduction by D. M. Armstrong vii

Space, Time and the Categories 1 Space, Time and the Categories 1 Chapter 1: Introductory Lectures 1 Chapter 1: Introductory Lectures 1 Lecture 1 1 Lecture 1 1 Lecture 2 5 Lecture 2 5 Lecture 3 8 Lecture 3 8 Lecture 4 12 Lecture 4 12 Lecture 5 14 Lecture 5 14 Chapter 2: Interrelations of Space and Time 18 Chapter 2: Interrelations of Space and Time 18 Lecture 6 18 Lecture 6 18 Lecture 7 20 Lecture 7 20 Lecture 8 23 Lecture 8 23 Lecture 9 27 Lecture 9 27 Lecture 10 30 Lecture 10 30 Lecture 11 34 Lecture 11 34 Lecture 12 37 Lecture 12 37 Chapter 3: Transition to the Categories 41 Chapter 3: Transition to the Categories 41 Lecture 13 41 Lecture 13 41 Lecture 14 44 Lecture 14 44 Lecture 15 47 Lecture 15 47 Lecture 16 50 Lecture 16 50 Chapter 4: The Categories I. The Logical Categories 53 Chapter 4: The Categories I. The Logical Categories 53 Lecture 16 (continued) 53 Lecture 16 (continued) 53 Lecture 17 55 Lecture 17 55 Lecture 18 59 Lecture 18 59 Lecture 19 62 Lecture 19 62 Lecture 20 66 Lecture 20 66 Lecture 21 70 Lecture 21 70 Lecture 22 73 Lecture 22 73 Lecture 23 76 Lecture 23 76 Lecture 24 79 Lecture 24 79 Lecture 25 82 Lecture 25 82 Lecture 26 85 Lecture 26 85 Lecture 27 89 Lecture 27 89 Lecture 28 92 Lecture 28 92

Chapter 5: The Categories II: The Mathematical Categories 95 Chapter 5: The Categories II: The Mathematical Categories 95 Lecture 28 (continued) 95 Lecture 28 (continued) 95 Lecture 29 97 Lecture 29 97 Lecture 30 101 Lecture 30 101 Lecture 31 104 Lecture 31 104 Lecture 32 108 Lecture 32 108 Chapter 6: The Categories III: The Physical Categories 112 Chapter 6: The Categories III: The Physical Categories 112 Lecture 33 112 Lecture 33 112 Lecture 34 114 Lecture 34 114 Lecture 35 118 Lecture 35 118 Lecture 36 122 Lecture 36 122 Lecture 37 125 Lecture 37 125 Lecture 38 129 Lecture 38 129 Lecture 39 132 Lecture 39 132 Lecture 40 135 Lecture 40 135 Lecture 41 138 Lecture 41 138 Lecture 42 142 Lecture 42 142 Lecture 43 146 Lecture 43 146 Lecture 44 148 Lecture 44 148 Lecture 45 151 Lecture 45 151

Appendices Appendices Additional Notes in Anderson’s hand 157 Additional Notes in Anderson’s hand 157 Letters from Anderson on Samuel Alexander 201 Letters from Anderson on Samuel Alexander 201 Abstract of the Gifford Lectures by Samuel Alexander 1917-18 206 Abstract of the Gifford Lectures by Samuel Alexander 1917-18 206 The Lectures on Logic 1948 247 The Lectures on Logic 1948 247

Index 293 Index 293

Foreword to the John Anderson Series Foreword to the John Anderson Series In 2006 a senior academic advisory committee was established at the In 2006 a senior academic advisory committee was established at the University of Sydney to oversee the publication of a series of books University of Sydney to oversee the publication of a series of books which would present the intellectual achievement and development of which would present the intellectual achievement and development of John Anderson, Challis Professor of Philosophy 1927–1958. In 2006- John Anderson, Challis Professor of Philosophy 1927–1958. In 2006- 08 the committee members are Emeritus Professor David Armstrong, 08 the committee members are Emeritus Professor David Armstrong, Emeritus Professor Paul Crittenden, and Professor Stephen Gaukroger. Emeritus Professor Paul Crittenden, and Professor Stephen Gaukroger. The committee is convened by the John Anderson Senior Research The committee is convened by the John Anderson Senior Research Fellow undertaking research into and publication of the papers of Fellow undertaking research into and publication of the papers of Professor Anderson. Professor Anderson. To some extent a proper appreciation of Anderson’s work requires To some extent a proper appreciation of Anderson’s work requires an experience of his lecture room. From the notes in the University an experience of his lecture room. From the notes in the University Archives we may be able to provide something of this experience. Many Archives we may be able to provide something of this experience. Many of these lecture notes have been transcribed and are available at the John of these lecture notes have been transcribed and are available at the John Anderson Archive along with Anderson’s previously published writings, Anderson Archive along with Anderson’s previously published writings, allowing researchers and students to access the chief resources and to allowing researchers and students to access the chief resources and to follow the course of his thinking over many years. follow the course of his thinking over many years. The published series to be selected from this material aims to provide The published series to be selected from this material aims to provide scholarly editions of the most complete and significant lectures now scholarly editions of the most complete and significant lectures now available and will include works devoted to Anderson’s metaphysics, available and will include works devoted to Anderson’s metaphysics, logic, ethics, politics and aesthetics. The series will help younger logic, ethics, politics and aesthetics. The series will help younger students and scholars to understand why John Anderson was the most students and scholars to understand why John Anderson was the most important, the most controversial and the most influential philosopher important, the most controversial and the most influential philosopher ever to have worked in Australia. ever to have worked in Australia. Ongoing research into Professor Anderson’s unpublished writings and Ongoing research into Professor Anderson’s unpublished writings and the series of books drawn from this research has only been possible the series of books drawn from this research has only been possible due to the generous bequest to the University of Sydney by his son, due to the generous bequest to the University of Sydney by his son, Alexander (Sandy) John Anderson (1923-1995). Alexander (Sandy) John Anderson (1923-1996).

Dr Creagh Cole Dr Creagh Cole John Anderson Senior Research Fellow John Anderson Senior Research Fellow University of Sydney 2007 University of Sydney 2007

Preface and Note on the Text Preface and Note on the Text With the publication of the two-volume work Space, Time and Deity With the publication of the two-volume work Space, Time and Deity in 1920, Samuel Alexander (1859–1938) became for a time one of the in 1920, Samuel Alexander (1859–1938) became for a time one of the most celebrated philosophers in Britain. His working life was spent most celebrated philosophers in Britain. His working life was spent almost entirely at the University of Manchester. He was, however, born almost entirely at the University of Manchester. He was, however, born in George Street, Sydney and educated in Melbourne before winning a in George Street, Sydney and educated in Melbourne before winning a scholarship as a young man to Balliol College, Oxford. Although he scholarship as a young man to Balliol College, Oxford. Although he was never to return to Australia the story of his influence on Australian was never to return to Australia the story of his influence on Australian philosophy was to take a surprising turn. philosophy was to take a surprising turn. In the Gifford lectures of 1917–18 in Glasgow he presented the In the Gifford lectures of 1917–18 in Glasgow he presented the main themes of Space, Time and Deity for the first time. One student main themes of Space, Time and Deity for the first time. One student who attended those lectures was the young Scottish philosopher, who attended those lectures was the young Scottish philosopher, John Anderson, who was then completing his Masters thesis on the John Anderson, who was then completing his Masters thesis on the philosophy of William James (1917) at the University of Glasgow, and philosophy of William James (1917) at the University of Glasgow, and who was to have a powerful influence on the direction of Australian who was to have a powerful influence on the direction of Australian philosophy following his appointment to the University of Sydney in philosophy following his appointment to the University of Sydney in 1927. 1927. Anderson was to revisit Alexander’s work on Space-Time and the Anderson was to revisit Alexander’s work on Space-Time and the Categories in a series of lectures delivered in the 1940s. These lectures Categories in a series of lectures delivered in the 1940s. These lectures renewed interest in Alexander at Sydney and became the means by renewed interest in Alexander at Sydney and became the means by which Anderson would elaborate his own systematic realism. His which Anderson would elaborate his own systematic realism. His students were in no doubt concerning Alexander’s importance and direct students were in no doubt concerning Alexander’s importance and direct influence on Anderson: influence on Anderson: Alexander profoundly stirred Anderson’s philosophical imagination; those Alexander profoundly stirred Anderson’s philosophical imagination; those who heard his lectures on Alexander felt that they were being led into the who heard his lectures on Alexander felt that they were being led into the very heart of Anderson’s philosophy.1 very heart of Anderson’s philosophy.1 He lectured directly on Alexander in 1941, 1944, 1947 and 1949. He lectured directly on Alexander in 1941, 1944, 1947 and 1949. Among the students taking notes of these lectures in the final series Among the students taking notes of these lectures in the final series 1949–50 was the young David Armstrong who in the 1960s would 1949–50 was the young David Armstrong who in the 1960s would take up Anderson’s position of Challis Professor of Philosophy at the take up Anderson’s position of Challis Professor of Philosophy at the University of Sydney. Professor Armstrong’s major writings since University of Sydney. Professor Armstrong’s major writings since the 1970s on universals and scientific realism, states of affairs and the 1970s on universals and scientific realism, states of affairs and truthmakers have in turn inspired a new generation of philosophers in truthmakers have in turn inspired a new generation of philosophers in the questions of metaphysics. the questions of metaphysics. Introduced by Professor Armstrong, this work brings together three Introduced by Professor Armstrong, this work brings together three of the major figures in the history of Australian philosophy. It of the major figures in the history of Australian philosophy. It

1John Passmore, "John Anderson and Twentieth Century Philosophy", introduction to Studies in Empirical 1John Passmore, "John Anderson and Twentieth Century Philosophy", introduction to Studies in Empirical Philosophy Sydney: Angus and Robertson 1962, pp. xii-xiii. Philosophy Sydney: Angus and Robertson 1962, pp. xii-xiii. iv iv presents a unique record of personal influence and inspiration over presents a unique record of personal influence and inspiration over three generations and is a vitally important text in the history of the three generations and is a vitally important text in the history of the development of realist philosophy in Australian universities. development of realist philosophy in Australian universities. Acknowledgements Acknowledgements Many thanks to Eric Dowling for the high quality of his typescript Many thanks to Eric Dowling for the high quality of his typescript lecture notes. Thanks are due most particularly to David Armstrong, lecture notes. Thanks are due most particularly to David Armstrong, not only for his own handwritten notes of the lectures and his personal not only for his own handwritten notes of the lectures and his personal recollections of Anderson, but also for his great enthusiasm for the recollections of Anderson, but also for his great enthusiasm for the project and his guiding hand and support throughout the editorial project and his guiding hand and support throughout the editorial process. Thanks also to the University Archives for permission to process. Thanks also to the University Archives for permission to reproduce primary materials from the Personal Papers of John Anderson. reproduce primary materials from the Personal Papers of John Anderson. Note on the Text Note on the Text There are at least two versions of student notes of the 1949-50 Alexander There are at least two versions of student notes of the 1949-50 Alexander lectures. The text followed here represents the notes by R. E. Dowling lectures. The text followed here represents the notes by R. E. Dowling and David Armstrong. These notes consist of 176 pages of typescript and David Armstrong. These notes consist of 176 pages of typescript (June to October 1949) by Dowling, and 50 pages of close handwritten (June to October 1949) by Dowling, and 50 pages of close handwritten notes by Armstrong (April to August 1950). notes by Armstrong (April to August 1950). The second set of student notes, recently discovered in the University The second set of student notes, recently discovered in the University Archives, are those by Sandy Anderson. They are missing lectures Archives, are those by Sandy Anderson. They are missing lectures 37, 41 and 42. Although the Dowling-Armstrong notes are a clearer 37, 41 and 42. Although the Dowling-Armstrong notes are a clearer presentation of the lectures, Sandy Alexander’s notes contain extensive presentation of the lectures, Sandy Alexander’s notes contain extensive annotations by John Anderson added at a later date later (perhaps later annotations by John Anderson added at a later date later (perhaps later than 1954). These additional notes have been included in Appendix 1 than 1954). These additional notes have been included in Appendix 1 following the main lectures. following the main lectures. Full transcriptions of all versions of the lecture notes are available at Full transcriptions of all versions of the lecture notes are available at the John Anderson Archive.2 the John Anderson Archive.2 There are 45 lectures in this lecture set and the original division of the There are 45 lectures in this lecture set and the original division of the lectures into six sections has been followed in the presentation: lectures into six sections has been followed in the presentation: Introductory Lectures (1-5) Introductory Lectures (1-5) Interrelations of Space and Time (6-12) Interrelations of Space and Time (6-12) Transition to the Categories (13-16) Transition to the Categories (13-16) Categories I (Logical/Qualitative) (16-28) Categories I (Logical/Qualitative) (16-28) Categories II (Mathematical/Quantitative) (28-32) Categories II (Mathematical/Quantitative) (28-32) Categories III (Physical) (33-45) Categories III (Physical) (33-45)

2The John Anderson Archive at http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/anderson/index.html 2The John Anderson Archive at http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/anderson/index.html John Anderson v John Anderson v As explained in Professor Armstrong’s Introduction the text includes As explained in Professor Armstrong’s Introduction the text includes prefatory remarks by Anderson which were not part of the dictated prefatory remarks by Anderson which were not part of the dictated lectures. Although these appear in the body of the text, they have lectures. Although these appear in the body of the text, they have been indented from the left to mark them off from the formally dictated been indented from the left to mark them off from the formally dictated lectures. Professor Armstrong reveals that these remarks were not part lectures. Professor Armstrong reveals that these remarks were not part of the dictated lectures and so were more difficult to transcribe. This of the dictated lectures and so were more difficult to transcribe. This is very clear in Lecture 1 where Anderson’s preliminary remarks seem is very clear in Lecture 1 where Anderson’s preliminary remarks seem quite extensive. We have chosen to use Anderson’s own more discursive quite extensive. We have chose to use Anderson’s own more discursive notes in place of the student notes in this case (pp. 1-3 below). notes in place of the student notes in this case (pp. 1-3 below). Other Lecture Series on Alexander Other Lecture Series on Alexander The available lecture series on Alexander’s Space, Time and Deity, The available lecture series on Alexander’s Space, Time and Deity, include those of 1941, 1944, 1947 and 1949. The lectures of 1941 and include those of 1941, 1944, 1947 and 1949. The lectures of 1941 and 1947 are very short. The 1941 lectures (8 lectures) are available at the 1947 are very short. The 1941 lectures (8 lectures) are available at the John Anderson Archive, and were introduced by the preceding course John Anderson Archive, and were introduced by the preceding course on Hegel. The 1947 lectures are a typescript copy of 7 lectures in the on Hegel. The 1947 lectures are a typescript copy of 7 lectures in the University Archives, Anderson Papers Box 32 Item 35 (2nd July 1947 University Archives, Anderson Papers Box 32 Item 35 (2nd July 1947 to 13th August 1947). The major lecture series then are from 1944 and to 13th August 1947). The major lecture series then are from 1944 and 1949. The 1944 course consists of 46 lectures and is similar in structure 1949. The 1944 course consists of 46 lectures and is similar in structure to the later 1949 course. The 1944 lecture notes are in Anderson’s to the later 1949 course. The 1944 lecture notes are in Anderson’s handwriting in the Personal Archives of John Anderson, Series 3, Item handwriting in the Personal Archives of John Anderson, Series 3, Item 25, University of Sydney Archives. It was transcribed at the University 25, University of Sydney Archives. It was transcribed at the University of Sydney Library in 1999, edited by George Molnar and Mark Weblin, of Sydney Library in 1999, edited by George Molnar and Mark Weblin, and published by Sydney University Press in 2004 under the title Space- and published by Sydney University Press in 2004 under the title Space, Time and the Proposition. Time and the Proposition. Appendices Appendices Appendix 1 presents additional notes written by John Anderson and Appendix 1 presents additional notes written by John Anderson and inserted into Sandy Anderson’s notes of the lectures. inserted into Sandy Anderson’s notes of the lectures. Appendix 2 presents two letters from the University Archives which Appendix 2 presents two letters from the University Archives which demonstrate Anderson’s relationship to Alexander at the time of the demonstrate Anderson’s relationship to Alexander at the time of the Gifford Lectures. Gifford Lectures. Appendix 3 is the abstract for Samuel Alexander’s Gifford Lectures of Appendix 3 is the abstract for Samuel Alexander’s Gifford Lectures of 1917 to 1918, which were to be the basis for the book Space, Time and 1917 to 1918, which were to be the basis for the book Space, Time and Deity of 1920. Deity of 1920. Appendix 4 presents Anderson’s notes for the Lectures on Logic Appendix 4 presents Anderson’s notes for the Lectures on Logic for 1948, a series referred to repeatedly in the 1949-50 lectures on for 1948, a series referred to repeatedly in the 1949-50 lectures on Alexander. The University Archives holds two versions of this logic Alexander. The University Archives holds two versions of this logic vi vi series, one in Anderson’s handwriting (P.A.J.A., Series 43, Box 102), series, one in Anderson’s handwriting (P.P.J.A., Series 43, Box 102), the other consisting of student notes by Sandy Anderson and with the other consisting of student notes by Sandy Anderson and with annotations by Anderson himself (P.A.J.A., Series 5, Box 32). All of annotations by Anderson himself (P.P.J.A., Series 5, Box 32). All of those annotations were incorporated into Anderson’s handwritten notes those annotations were incorporated into Anderson’s handwritten notes which also include later addenda and references to articles published which also include later addenda and references to articles published later than 1948. His handwritten notes then appear to be Anderson’s final later than 1948. His handwritten notes then appear to be Anderson’s final version of the lectures. This is the version included here as Appendix version of the lectures. This is the version included here as Appendix 4. 4. Abbreviations Abbreviations Several abbreviations have been used in the footnotes for regular Several abbreviations have been used in the footnotes for regular citations. citations. A.J.P.P. — Australasian Journal of Psychology and Philosophy A.J.P.P. — Australasian Journal of Psychology and Philosophy (later Australasian Journal of Philosophy). (later Australasian Journal of Philosophy). [DMA] — D. M. Armstrong (responsibility statement for [DMA] — D. M. Armstrong (responsibility statement for footnotes in the Lectures on Alexander 1949-50. footnotes in the Lectures on Alexander 1949-50. [JA] — John Anderson (responsibility statement for footnotes in [JA] — John Anderson (responsibility statement for footnotes in the Logic Lectures of 1948. the Logic Lectures of 1948. J.A.A. — The John Anderson Archive at the University of Sydney J.A.A. — The John Anderson Archive at the University of Sydney at http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/anderson/ at http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/anderson/ P.A.J.A. — Personal Archives of John Anderson, University of P.A.J.A. — Personal Archives of John Anderson, University of Sydney Archives Sydney Archives STD — Samuel Alexander, Space, Time and Deity; being the STD — Samuel Alexander, Space, Time and Deity; being the Gifford Lectures 1916-1918. London: Macmillan, 1920. Two volumes. Gifford Lectures 1916-1918. London: Macmillan, 1920. Two volumes. Studies — John Anderson, Studies in Empirical Philosophy, Studies — John Anderson, Studies in Empirical Philosophy, Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1962. Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1962. Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction by D. M. Armstrong by D. M. Armstrong by D. M. Armstrong by D. M. Armstrong These lectures contain theThese most lectures developed contain statement the most that developed we have of statement that we have of These lectures contain theThese most lectures developed contain statement the most that developed we have of statement that we have of John Anderson’s accountJohn of the Anderson’s general nature account of being, of the what general we nature may of being, what we may John Anderson’s accountJohn of the Anderson’s general nature account of being, of the what general we nature may of being, what we may call his ontology or metaphysics.call his1 ontologyThey were or givenmetaphysics. to Sydney1 They University were given to Sydney University call his ontology or metaphysics.call his1 ontologyThey were or givenmetaphysics. to Sydney1 They University were given to Sydney University Honours philosophy studentsHonours in their philosophy 3rd and students 4th years, in thetheir first 3rd part and 4th years, the first part Honours philosophy studentsHonours in their philosophy 3rd and students 4th years, in thetheir first 3rd part and 4th years, the first part during 1949, the second partduring in 1950. 1949, I the am second happy part to declare in 1950. an Iinterest am happy to declare an interest during 1949, the second partduring in 1950. 1949, I the am second happy part to declare in 1950. an Iinterest am happy to declare an interest by saying that I attended thoseby saying lectures, that andI attended that they those inspired lectures, me andwith that a they inspired me with a by saying that I attended thoseby saying lectures, that andI attended that they those inspired lectures, me andwith that a they inspired me with a passionate interest in the greatpassionate questions interest of metaphysics. in the great questions of metaphysics. passionate interest in the greatpassionate questions interest of metaphysics. in the great questions of metaphysics. The lectures were, as wasThe usual lectures with were, Anderson, as was presented usual with as Anderson, a presented as a The lectures were, as wasThe usual lectures with were, Anderson, as was presented usual with as Anderson, a presented as a commentary on another author,commentary in this on case another that of author, Samuel in Alexander’s this case that of Samuel Alexander’s commentary on another author,commentary in this on case another that of author, Samuel in Alexander’s this case that of Samuel Alexander’s two-volume work Space Timetwo-volume and Deity work(1920).Space This Time book andDeity was based(1920). This book was based two-volume work Space Timetwo-volume and Deity work(1920).Space This Time book andDeity was based(1920). This book was based on lectures given at Glasgowon lectures University given 1916 at Glasgow to 1918, University and Anderson, 1916 to 1918, and Anderson, on lectures given at Glasgowon lectures University given 1916 at Glasgow to 1918, University and Anderson, 1916 to 1918, and Anderson, as a young student philosopher,as a young attended student these philosopher, lectures. The attended historian these lectures. The historian as a young student philosopher,as a young attended student these philosopher, lectures. The attended historian these lectures. The historian Brian Kennedy says in hisBrian biography Kennedy of Anderson says in his2: biography of Anderson2: Brian Kennedy says in hisBrian biography Kennedy of Anderson says in his2: biography of Anderson2: During 1918 Professor SamuelDuring Alexander, 1918 Professor the Australian-born Samuel Alexander, Jewish the Australian-born Jewish During 1918 Professor SamuelDuring Alexander, 1918 Professor the Australian-born Samuel Alexander, Jewish the Australian-born Jewish philosopher from Manchester, livedphilosopher at the university from Manchester, for several lived months at the while university for several months while philosopher from Manchester, livedphilosopher at the university from Manchester, for several lived months at the while university for several months while he delivered the Gifford lectures.he delivered He frequently the Gifford attended lectures. meetings He of frequently the attended meetings of the he delivered the Gifford lectures.he delivered He frequently the Gifford attended lectures. meetings He of frequently the attended meetings of the [Philosophical] society and canvassed[Philosophical] the realist society arguments and canvassed of ‘Space, the Time realist arguments of ‘Space, Time [Philosophical] society and canvassed[Philosophical] the realist society arguments and canvassed of ‘Space, the Time realist arguments of ‘Space, Time and Deity’ in informal meetingsand with Deity’ students in informal and staff. meetings The young with students man and staff. The young man and Deity’ in informal meetingsand with Deity’ students in informal and staff. meetings The young with students man and staff. The young man [Anderson] liked the affable and[Anderson] avuncular liked Alexander the affable and had and a avuncular number of Alexander and had a number of [Anderson] liked the affable and[Anderson] avuncular liked Alexander the affable and had and a avuncular number of Alexander and had a number of discussions with him. . . (p.47).3discussions with him. . . (p.47).3 discussions with him. . . (p.47).3discussions with him. . . (p.47).3 I have heard Anderson sayI have that atheard that Anderson time he was say looking that at that for some time he was looking for some I have heard Anderson sayI have that atheard that Anderson time he was say looking that at that for some time he was looking for some figure on which to basefigure his metaphysics on which toon. base He his had metaphysics considered buton. He had considered but figure on which to basefigure his metaphysics on which toon. base He his had metaphysics considered buton. He had considered but discarded Bertrand Russell.discarded Alexander’s Bertrand empiricist Russell. scheme, Alexander’s a space- empiricist scheme, a space- discarded Bertrand Russell.discarded Alexander’s Bertrand empiricist Russell. scheme, Alexander’s a space- empiricist scheme, a space- time world subject to categories,time world features subject that to anything categories, spatio-temporal features that anything spatio-temporal time world subject to categories,time world features subject that to anything categories, spatio-temporal features that anything spatio-temporal exhibits, was just the sortexhibits, of thing he was was just looking the sort for. of thing he was looking for. exhibits, was just the sortexhibits, of thing he was was just looking the sort for. of thing he was looking for. This is not to say that AndersonThis is notwas to not say very that critical Anderson of the was way not that very critical of the way that This is not to say that AndersonThis is notwas to not say very that critical Anderson of the was way not that very critical of the way that Alexander spelt out his argument.Alexander Somespelt out things, his argument. such as Alexander’s Some things, such as Alexander’s Alexander spelt out his argument.Alexander Somespelt out things, his argument. such as Alexander’s Some things, such as Alexander’s ‘emergent’ Deity, he rejected‘emergent’ without Deity, even discussing he rejected the without view evenin these discussing the view in these ‘emergent’ Deity, he rejected‘emergent’ without Deity, even discussing he rejected the without view evenin these discussing the view in these lectures. But as the readerlectures. will see, But Alexander as the reader is continually will see, Alexandercriticized is continually criticized lectures. But as the readerlectures. will see, But Alexander as the reader is continually will see, Alexandercriticized is continually criticized for all sorts of failure, infor particular all sorts fallings of failure, away in from particular ‘realism’ fallings and away from ‘realism’ and for all sorts of failure, infor particular all sorts fallings of failure, away in from particular ‘realism’ fallings and away from ‘realism’ and ‘empiricism’ as well as numerous‘empiricism’ matters as well of detail. as numerous It has tomatters be said, of detail. It has to be said, ‘empiricism’ as well as numerous‘empiricism’ matters as well of detail. as numerous It has tomatters be said, of detail. It has to be said, though, that Anderson wasthough, a fierce that critic Anderson of any was philosopher a fierce critic whom of he any philosopher whom he though, that Anderson wasthough, a fierce that critic Anderson of any was philosopher a fierce critic whom of he any philosopher whom he discussed. There was justdiscussed. one who he There seemed was tojust admire, one who this he was seemed the to admire, this was the discussed. There was justdiscussed. one who he There seemed was tojust admire, one who this he was seemed the to admire, this was the

1 Earlier lectures were given in 1944. These have1 Earlier been published lectures were as Space-Time given in 1944. and theThese Proposition: have been Thepublished 1944 Lectures as Space-Time on and the Proposition: The 1944 Lectures on 1 Earlier lectures were given in 1944. These have1 Earlier been published lectures were as Space-Time given in 1944. and theThese Proposition: have been Thepublished 1944 Lectures as Space-Time on and the Proposition: The 1944 Lectures on Samuel Alexander’s Space, Time and Deity, bySamuel John Anderson. Alexander’s Edited Space, and Time with andan introduction Deity, by John by Mark Anderson. Weblin. Edited Sydney and with an introduction by Mark Weblin. Sydney Samuel Alexander’s Space, Time and Deity, bySamuel John Anderson. Alexander’s Edited Space, and Time with andan introduction Deity, by John by Mark Anderson. Weblin. Edited Sydney and with an introduction by Mark Weblin. Sydney University Press, Sydney: 2004. University Press, Sydney: 2004. University Press, Sydney: 2004. University Press, Sydney: 2004. 2 A Passion to Oppose: John Anderson, Philosopher2 A Passion, Melbourne to Oppose: University John Press,Anderson, Melbourne: Philosopher 1995., Melbourne University Press, Melbourne: 1995. 2 A Passion to Oppose: John Anderson, Philosopher2 A Passion, Melbourne to Oppose: University John Press,Anderson, Melbourne: Philosopher 1995., Melbourne University Press, Melbourne: 1995. 3 See also the extract from an interesting letter3 fromSee Anderson also the extract to his from future an wife, interesting Janet Baillie, letter from in February Anderson 22nd to his future wife, Janet Baillie, in February 22nd 3 See also the extract from an interesting letter3 fromSee Anderson also the extract to his from future an wife, interesting Janet Baillie, letter from in February Anderson 22nd to his future wife, Janet Baillie, in February 22nd 1917, in Appendix 2 to this volume. 1917, in Appendix 2 to this volume. 1917, in Appendix 2 to this volume. 1917, in Appendix 2 to this volume. viii viii Presocratic philosopher Heraclitus. I think he saw Heraclitus as giving Presocratic philosopher Heraclitus. I think he saw Heraclitus as giving a dark, poetic adumbration of his own position. Heraclitus said, in one a dark, poetic adumbration of his own position. Heraclitus said, in one wonderful fragment that we have: wonderful fragment that we have: This world, which is the same for all, no one of gods or men has made; but This world, which is the same for all, no one of gods or men has made; but it was ever, is now, and ever shall be an ever-living Fire, with measures of it it was ever, is now, and ever shall be an ever-living Fire, with measures of it kindling and measures going out.4 (R.P. 355.)5 kindling and measures going out.4 (R.P. 355.)5 This could serve as a brief but pregnant summing up of Anderson’s This could serve as a brief but pregnant summing up of Anderson’s own world-view, reading ‘fire’ as metaphor for the doctrine Anderson own world-view, reading ‘fire’ as metaphor for the doctrine Anderson upheld that everything was always ‘in flux’ (another phrase from upheld that everything was always ‘in flux’ (another phrase from Heraclitus); and the ‘measures’ as what Anderson called ‘the ways of Heraclitus); and the ‘measures’ as what Anderson called ‘the ways of working’ of things, what others might call ‘the laws of nature’. working’ of things, what others might call ‘the laws of nature’. Following on an old tradition, which he presumably encountered in Following on an old tradition, which he presumably encountered in the Scottish universities, Anderson’s lectures were dictated, using either the Scottish universities, Anderson’s lectures were dictated, using either his own notes for the lecture, or perhaps sometimes texts of earlier his own notes for the lecture, or perhaps sometimes texts of earlier dictations. No guidance was given on punctuation, paragraphing, etc. dictations. No guidance was given on punctuation, paragraphing, etc. except the tone in his own voice, something that should be borne in except the tone in his own voice, something that should be borne in mind in the transcriptions of lectures that follow. The 1949 lectures are mind in the transcriptions of lectures that follow. The 1949 lectures are based on a typescript made by Dr. R. E. Dowling (Eric Dowling) who based on a typescript made by Dr. R. E. Dowling (Eric Dowling) who was another member of the class, and the 1950 lectures are based on my was another member of the class, and the 1950 lectures are based on my own hand-written notes, which were re-written shortly after each lecture. own hand-written notes, which were re-written shortly after each lecture. Discussion was not much encouraged, it was best if one had a query or Discussion was not much encouraged, it was best if one had a query or difficulty to approach him at the end of the lecture, though even that was difficulty to approach him at the end of the lecture, though even that was not much done. What he wanted you to do was to master the material he not much done. What he wanted you to do was to master the material he had presented. had presented. He did present some material informally at ordinary talking speed, He did present some material informally at ordinary talking speed, often at the beginning of a lecture, perhaps some mention of the lesson often at the beginning of a lecture, perhaps some mention of the lesson of the previous lecture, but sometimes some illuminating extras. Some of the previous lecture, but sometimes some illuminating extras. Some of us tried to take notes of this material also, but could do little better of us tried to take notes of this material also, but could do little better than a telegraphic rendering of what was said. In the present text of the than a telegraphic rendering of what was said. In the present text of the lectures, these notes are marked by being indented on the left with the lectures, these notes are marked by being indented on the left with the print size reduced. print size reduced. We may now consider some of Anderson’s philosophical pre- We may now consider some of Anderson’s philosophical pre- suppositions in these lectures, in particular ones that his students suppositions in these lectures, in particular ones that his students understood well enough, but which are likely to not be understood by understood well enough, but which are likely to not be understood by present readers. But let us begin with Alexander’s plan of attack. present readers. But let us begin with Alexander’s plan of attack.

4 John Burnet, Early Greek Philosophy, 4th ed. 1930, p.134, Fragment 20. Among historians of philosophy, 4 John Burnet, Early Greek Philosophy, 4th ed. 1930, p.134, Fragment 20. Among historians of philosophy, Anderson picked out only one of them to admire: the Scotsman John Burnet. Anderson picked out only one of them to admire: the Scotsman John Burnet. 5 R. P. is: Historia Philosophiae Graecae, H. Ritter et L. Preller Editio octava, quam curavit Eduardus Wellmann. 5 R. P. is: Historia Philosophiae Graecae, H. Ritter et L. Preller Editio octava, quam curavit Eduardus Wellmann. Gotha, 1898. Gotha, 1898. John Anderson ix John Anderson ix What drew Anderson to Alexander’s work in the first place? He What drew Anderson to Alexander’s work in the first place? He was greatly impressed by Alexander’s central idea, which we may now was greatly impressed by Alexander’s central idea, which we may now consider. Alexander started from Kant. In Kant’s metaphysics, space consider. Alexander started from Kant. In Kant’s metaphysics, space and time are argued to be mere forms of intuition under which we must and time are argued to be mere forms of intuition under which we must experience the world, and categories such as causality and substance experience the world, and categories such as causality and substance are mere forms of understanding under which we must understand the are mere forms of understanding under which we must understand the world. Things-in-themselves, what is objectively there, are not given world. Things-in-themselves, what is objectively there, are not given to us, Kant argued, and so we could know nothing about them. With to us, Kant argued, and so we could know nothing about them. With these doctrines Kant had moved significantly towards a philosophical these doctrines Kant had moved significantly towards a philosophical Idealism. But Alexander suggested, and Anderson enthusiastically Idealism. But Alexander suggested, and Anderson enthusiastically seconded the idea, that a Realist revolt be staged against Kantian seconded the idea, that a Realist revolt be staged against Kantian Idealism. Space and Time are not forms of intuition, but are forms of Idealism. Space and Time are not forms of intuition, but are forms of being. Reality, that is, everything, is spatio-temporal. The categories are being. Reality, that is, everything, is spatio-temporal. The categories are not forms of understanding but are categories of being, categories under not forms of understanding but are categories of being, categories under which all being, which is spatio-temporal being, must fall.6 Alexander’s which all being, which is spatio-temporal being, must fall.6 Alexander’s book, and Anderson’s lectures both work this idea out, though with a book, and Anderson’s lectures both work this idea out, though with a great deal of difference in the detail. great deal of difference in the detail. We should now consider some of Anderson’s philosophical pre- We should now consider some of Anderson’s philosophical pre- suppositions in these lectures, in particular ones that his students suppositions in these lectures, in particular ones that his students understood well enough, but which are likely to not be understood by understood well enough, but which are likely to not be understood by present readers. present readers. With regard to space and time Anderson took up a position that I think With regard to space and time Anderson took up a position that I think would be very difficult to take up today. He took space, with its three would be very difficult to take up today. He took space, with its three dimensions, and time with its one dimension, to be fundamental, to dimensions, and time with its one dimension, to be fundamental, to be ontological bed-rock. He took space-time to be infinite, and to be be ontological bed-rock. He took space-time to be infinite, and to be continuous in the precise mathematical sense—governed by the ‘real continuous in the precise mathematical sense—governed by the ‘real number’ system. He also thought that its geometry was Euclidean, number’ system. He also thought that its geometry was Euclidean, thus putting himself utterly at odds with modern cosmology. We are thus putting himself utterly at odds with modern cosmology. We are familiar now with the idea that space and time, or rather space-time, is a familiar now with the idea that space and time, or rather space-time, is a subject for empirical investigation and that its true nature is still to seek. subject for empirical investigation and that its true nature is still to seek. Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, contemporary quantum physics, Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, contemporary quantum physics, and such further developments such as ‘string theory’, make this clear. and such further developments such as ‘string theory’, make this clear. What picture of ultimate physical reality they leave us with is very far What picture of ultimate physical reality they leave us with is very far from clear, but there is no going back to the old Newtonian account of from clear, but there is no going back to the old Newtonian account of space and time. space and time. The American philosopher Wilfrid Sellars drew a famous distinction The American philosopher Wilfrid Sellars drew a famous distinction between the ‘manifest image’ of the world, the world as revealed to between the ‘manifest image’ of the world, the world as revealed to

6 I record here that my BA. Honours thesis, which I should not care to re-read, was called “A Realist Reconstruction of Kant’s 6 I record here that my BA. Honours thesis, which I should not care to re-read, was called “A Realist Reconstruction of Kant’s Transcendental Anaytic”. Transcendental Anaytic”. x x ordinary perception, and the ‘scientific image’ that fundamental physics ordinary perception, and the ‘scientific image’ that fundamental physics and cosmology strives to present us with. He argued that the manifest and cosmology strives to present us with. He argued that the manifest image can hardly be maintained and must largely yield to the scientific image can hardly be maintained and must largely yield to the scientific image.7 It can fairly be said, I think, that Anderson takes the manifest image.7 It can fairly be said, I think, that Anderson takes the manifest image of space and time to be the ontological reality, and that this image of space and time to be the ontological reality, and that this position is now very difficult to defend. position is now very difficult to defend. In the case of the categories Anderson is on what I judge to be more In the case of the categories Anderson is on what I judge to be more interesting ground. The categories of being dive so deep, that though interesting ground. The categories of being dive so deep, that though quantum physics and other physics may have interesting things to say quantum physics and other physics may have interesting things to say to philosophers—for instance, whether causation is in fact deterministic to philosophers—for instance, whether causation is in fact deterministic or not—the major issues involved are not susceptible of being resolved or not—the major issues involved are not susceptible of being resolved at the level of experimental science, yet seem to be real issues. Science at the level of experimental science, yet seem to be real issues. Science may be able to cast light on whether causation is irreducibly statistical may be able to cast light on whether causation is irreducibly statistical or not, but how can it decide what causation is in itself? Is it just or not, but how can it decide what causation is in itself? Is it just a universal or statistical regularity? Or is it something deeper in the a universal or statistical regularity? Or is it something deeper in the nature of things? What of the properties, numbers and quantities in nature of things? What of the properties, numbers and quantities in which physical science inevitably traffics? Are they just concepts in which physical science inevitably traffics? Are they just concepts in our minds, or do they point us to features of physical objects that our our minds, or do they point us to features of physical objects that our concepts merely reflect? Alexander and Anderson give realist answers concepts merely reflect? Alexander and Anderson give realist answers to such questions; and, furthermore, Anderson’s answers are more sharply such questions; and, furthermore, Anderson’s answers are more sharply edged than Alexander’s, and well repay examination. edged than Alexander’s, and well repay examination. One difficulty that Anderson canvasses early in the lectures, but hardly One difficulty that Anderson canvasses early in the lectures, but hardly resolves, is the question forced on him by the demand of his logic that his resolves, is the question forced on him by the demand of his logic that his terms (and we shall see shortly how realistically he takes terms) should terms (and we shall see shortly how realistically he takes terms) should have real, existing, opposites. If A is term, then there must be non-A’s. have real, existing, opposites. If A is term, then there must be non-A’s. Applied to the categories this raises a problem, because the categories Applied to the categories this raises a problem, because the categories are, by definition, properties or whatever we decide to call them, that are, by definition, properties or whatever we decide to call them, that everything must have, must fall under. everything must have, must fall under. Anderson never embraced the new formal logic created by Bertrand Anderson never embraced the new formal logic created by Bertrand Russell and A. N. Whitehead along with others. He was perhaps the last Russell and A. N. Whitehead along with others. He was perhaps the last of the ‘Aristotelian’ logicians. He drafted a logic book8 but it was never of the ‘Aristotelian’ logicians. He drafted a logic book8 but it was never published. But there here exists in his handwriting an exposition of the published. But there here exists in his handwriting an exposition of the central themes in his system of logic, marked as being lectures given in central themes in his system of logic, marked as being lectures given in 1948. We think that they could be a useful companion to the Alexander 1948. We think that they could be a useful companion to the Alexander lectures, and have reproduced them in Appendix 4. lectures, and have reproduced them in Appendix 4.

7 Wilfrid Sellars, "Philosophy and the Scientific Image of Man", Frontiers of Science and Philosophy, edited by R.G. Colodny, 7 Wilfrid Sellars, "Philosophy and the Scientific Image of Man", Frontiers of Science and Philosophy, edited by R.G. Colodny, 1962, reprinted as Ch. 1 in Science, Perception and Reality, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London: 1963. 1962, reprinted as Ch. 1 in Science, Perception and Reality, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London: 1963. 8 Manuscript and typescript copies of this book are in the Sydney University Archives, P.A.J.A. Series 2 (1914-1926). 8 Manuscript and typescript copies of this book are in the Sydney University Archives, P.A.J.A. Series 2 (1914-1926). John Anderson xi John Anderson xi But for those who do not wish to study the Logic lectures, or would like But for those who do not wish to study the Logic lectures, or would like some preliminary guidance, I will call attention here to some of the main some preliminary guidance, I will call attention here to some of the main themes in his thinking on logic. He accepted the traditional doctrine of themes in his thinking on logic. He accepted the traditional doctrine of the subject/ predicate proposition, with its four Aristotelian forms: the subject/ predicate proposition, with its four Aristotelian forms: All A’s are B (the A proposition, in symbols AaB) All A’s are B (the A proposition, in symbols AaB) No A’s are B (the E proposition, AeB) No A’s are B (the E proposition, AeB) Some A’s are B (the I proposition, AiB) Some A’s are B (the I proposition, AiB) Some A’s are not B (the O proposition, AoB) Some A’s are not B (the O proposition, AoB) These terms are all supposed to have real opposites. There must These terms are all supposed to have real opposites. There must be non-As and non-Bs, thus raising the problem about the categories, be non-As and non-Bs, thus raising the problem about the categories, which by definition have no opposites. One can see also that there may which by definition have no opposites. One can see also that there may be problems about propositions that assert that a certain relation holds be problems about propositions that assert that a certain relation holds between two or more things, the propositions that contemporary logic between two or more things, the propositions that contemporary logic symbolizes as e.g. R(a,b). How are such propositions to be rendered in symbolizes as e.g. R(a,b). How are such propositions to be rendered in one of the four forms? Anderson is aware of this problem and discusses one of the four forms? Anderson is aware of this problem and discusses that problem for his position in the lectures (See lecture 19, section 2, that problem for his position in the lectures (See lecture 19, section 2, lecture 21, paragraph 3, see also lectures 22 and 24.) He suggests that lecture 21, paragraph 3, see also lectures 22 and 24.) He suggests that relational properties (to be distinguished from relations) can be used, relational properties (to be distinguished from relations) can be used, i.e., that ‘having R to b’ can be taken to be a term. i.e., that ‘having R to b’ can be taken to be a term. Notice that the singular propositions ‘This A is a B’ and ‘This A Notice that the singular propositions ‘This A is a B’ and ‘This A is not B’ are not included among the fundamental forms. This also is not B’ are not included among the fundamental forms. This also created some difficulty for Anderson. He tried to deal with it by treating created some difficulty for Anderson. He tried to deal with it by treating e.g. ‘Socrates is sitting’ as a sort of I proposition, because Socrates is e.g. ‘Socrates is sitting’ as a sort of I proposition, because Socrates is sometimes sitting and sometimes not sitting. sometimes sitting and sometimes not sitting. Anderson again follows the old logic in recognizing the copula, the Anderson again follows the old logic in recognizing the copula, the ‘are’ in the four forms, or the ‘is’ in singular propositions (‘Socrates ‘are’ in the four forms, or the ‘is’ in singular propositions (‘Socrates is wise’). It is clearly not the ‘are’ or ‘is’ of identity, unlike ‘The is wise’). It is clearly not the ‘are’ or ‘is’ of identity, unlike ‘The Morning star is the Evening star’ which is an identity statement. Rather, Morning star is the Evening star’ which is an identity statement. Rather, it links particulars or a particular with their properties. Here it may be it links particulars or a particular with their properties. Here it may be said of the old logic that it brings up-front what the new Russellian said of the old logic that it brings up-front what the new Russellian logic ignores. Or rather, the new logic hands over the problem to logic ignores. Or rather, the new logic hands over the problem to metaphysics, and contemporary metaphysicians well understand the metaphysics, and contemporary metaphysicians well understand the pressure to postulate some ‘fundamental tie’ holding between an object pressure to postulate some ‘fundamental tie’ holding between an object and its properties, though not all of these metaphysicians actually and its properties, though not all of these metaphysicians actually accept such ties. Anderson, however, gives the copula ontological accept such ties. Anderson, however, gives the copula ontological significance, indeed identifies it with one of his categories, that of significance, indeed identifies it with one of his categories, that of Existence. Furthermore, he also accepts a negative copula, needed, as Existence. Furthermore, he also accepts a negative copula, needed, as xii xii he sees it, by the E and the O propositions, though I am not aware of he sees it, by the E and the O propositions, though I am not aware of any identification that he makes of this second copula with one of his any identification that he makes of this second copula with one of his categories. categories. Another important point to be noted in Anderson’s logic is the doctrine Another important point to be noted in Anderson’s logic is the doctrine of the ‘convertibility of terms’. The term that in one proposition appears of the ‘convertibility of terms’. The term that in one proposition appears in the subject place can elsewhere appear in the predicate place. The in the subject place can elsewhere appear in the predicate place. The argument for this is that, for example, in the syllogism ‘All As are Bs, All argument for this is that, for example, in the syllogism ‘All As are Bs, All Bs are Cs, therefore All As are Cs’, the ‘middle term’ B must be identical Bs are Cs, therefore All As are Cs’, the ‘middle term’ B must be identical in the two premises for the argument to be valid. The late George Molnar in the two premises for the argument to be valid. The late George Molnar pointed out to me that this made the distinction between subject and pointed out to me that this made the distinction between subject and predicate, particular and universal, a functional one for Anderson. predicate, particular and universal, a functional one for Anderson. But the most unusual feature of Anderson’s view of logic must now be But the most unusual feature of Anderson’s view of logic must now be introduced if much that he says in these lectures is to be understood. introduced if much that he says in these lectures is to be understood. For him, logic is at the same time the science of the most general For him, logic is at the same time the science of the most general features of reality, and a true proposition is something in the world, there features of reality, and a true proposition is something in the world, there is no distance between the true proposition and reality. The world is is no distance between the true proposition and reality. The world is propositional. (Notice also that in view of the negative forms E and O propositional. (Notice also that in view of the negative forms E and O Anderson is committed to negativity in the world.) Anderson is committed to negativity in the world.) This view does immediately raise the question ‘What about false This view does immediately raise the question ‘What about false propositions, then?’ and this was a problem that regularly exercised the propositions, then?’ and this was a problem that regularly exercised the minds of Anderson’s students, and which we discussed among ourselves. minds of Anderson’s students, and which we discussed among ourselves. But it can be pointed out that Russell had in his important lectures But it can be pointed out that Russell had in his important lectures published in 1918 as The Philosophy of Logical Atomism9 argued for published in 1918 as The Philosophy of Logical Atomism9 argued for a view of the world that it was constituted by what he called ‘facts’ a view of the world that it was constituted by what he called ‘facts’ (others have said ‘states of affairs’) which had a distinctly proposition- (others have said ‘states of affairs’) which had a distinctly proposition- like structure, though the structure, such as it was, was given by his new, like structure, though the structure, such as it was, was given by his new, non-Aristotelian, logic. Anderson can be thought of as doing much the non-Aristotelian, logic. Anderson can be thought of as doing much the same thing, but retaining an Aristotelian logic. It is interesting to notice same thing, but retaining an Aristotelian logic. It is interesting to notice that Russell in his lectures accepted and argued for negative facts as that Russell in his lectures accepted and argued for negative facts as ontological realities, which constitutes a further parallel to Anderson’s ontological realities, which constitutes a further parallel to Anderson’s E and O propositions. E and O propositions. A further problem that arises for Anderson is to determine just what A further problem that arises for Anderson is to determine just what categories should be recognized, and how they should be ordered. We categories should be recognized, and how they should be ordered. We find him arguing both these points with Alexander. Anderson says that find him arguing both these points with Alexander. Anderson says that it is the proposition itself that answers this problem. If we consult its it is the proposition itself that answers this problem. If we consult its subject-predicate structure then, he thinks, with the subject indicating subject-predicate structure then, he thinks, with the subject indicating the place and time of something, and the predicate indicating what the place and time of something, and the predicate indicating what

9 Russell’s Logical Atomism, ed. David Pears, London, Fontana Collins, 1972. 9 Russell’s Logical Atomism, ed. David Pears, London, Fontana Collins, 1972. John Anderson xiii John Anderson xiii sort of thing it is, we can get a systematic answer to these questions. sort of thing it is, we can get a systematic answer to these questions. Interestingly, Anderson was here following Kant’s lead, but this time Interestingly, Anderson was here following Kant’s lead, but this time without a lead from Alexander. Kant had what Norman Kemp Smith, without a lead from Alexander. Kant had what Norman Kemp Smith, who made the classical English translation of Kant’s Critique of Pure who made the classical English translation of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason called Kant’s ‘metaphysical deduction of the categories’ (see Reason called Kant’s ‘metaphysical deduction of the categories’ (see the index to his translation), where Kant uses logical considerations to the index to his translation), where Kant uses logical considerations to ‘deduce’ his list of categories. (See pp.106—119 in the Kemp Smith ‘deduce’ his list of categories. (See pp.106—119 in the Kemp Smith translation.) translation.) It may whet the appetite of those philosophers who have metaphysical It may whet the appetite of those philosophers who have metaphysical interests to give an immediate pre-view of his scheme of categories. interests to give an immediate pre-view of his scheme of categories.

I II III I II III Categories of Categories of Categories of Categories of Categories of Categories of Logic or Quality Mathematics Physics Logic or Quality Mathematics Physics or Quantity or Quantity

Identity Universality Quantity Identity Universality Quantity

Difference Particularity Intensity Difference Particularity Intensity (Class membership) (Class membership)

Existence Number Substance Existence Number Substance

Relation Order Causality Relation Order Causality

Universality Quantity Individuality Universality Quantity Individuality (Thing-hood) (Thing-hood)

Figure 1. Figure 1.

His set of categories of 13 categories (1 more than Kant’s 12) is laid His set of categories of 13 categories (1 more than Kant’s 12) is laid out in an almost Hegel-like ‘succession’ organized in three groups, with out in an almost Hegel-like ‘succession’ organized in three groups, with the categories of Universality and Quantity acting as ‘link categories’ in the categories of Universality and Quantity acting as ‘link categories’ in the two transitions between groups. ‘Monadic’ and ‘dyadic’ categories the two transitions between groups. ‘Monadic’ and ‘dyadic’ categories succeed to each other, so that Difference, Relation, Particularity, Order, succeed to each other, so that Difference, Relation, Particularity, Order, Intensity and Causality are dyadic, the others monadic. Individuality, Intensity and Causality are dyadic, the others monadic. Individuality, Anderson noted, brings us circling back to Identity again, though with a Anderson noted, brings us circling back to Identity again, though with a richer, more enhanced, notion of Identity. richer, more enhanced, notion of Identity. With this scheme, John Anderson joins a very distinguished line of With this scheme, John Anderson joins a very distinguished line of philosophers who have presented us with a set of categories. We have philosophers who have presented us with a set of categories. We have first Plato (the doctrine of Highest Kinds in his dialogue The Sophist), first Plato (the doctrine of Highest Kinds in his dialogue The Sophist), then Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, and Samuel Alexander. then Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, and Samuel Alexander.