Wittgenstein's Critique of Russell's Multiple Relation Theory of Judgement

"This is the first comprehensive book length treatment of Wittgenstein's critique of Russell's multiple relation theory of judgment. Connelly covers all of the historical and philosophical issues surrounding Wittgenstein's critique and offers a new and deeply interesting interpretation. It is a masterful achievement." -Peter Hanks, Professor and Chair, Department of Philosophy, University of Minnesota, USA

"This book is an insightful and illuminating study, combining a rich critical summary of existing interpretations and an interesting new account. It is essential reading for all students and scholars of the Russell-Wittgenstein dispute concerning the nature of judgement" -Graham Stevens, Head of Philosophy Department, School of Social Science, University of Manchester, UK

"James Connelly first conducts an expert tour through elusive primary sources and voluminous secondary literature in order to advance his own distinctive interpretation of the philosophical confrontation that waged between Russell and Wittgenstein in 1913. Secondly, Connelly demonstrates the ongoing and much-overlooked influence that this confrontation had over the evolution of Wittgenstein's own philosophical development. For both of these reasons, Connelly has made a vital contribution to the history of early analytic philosophy." -Samuel Lebens, Research Fellow, University of Haifa, Israel

Connelly's expert and clear presentation, all in one book, of all of the key interpretations in the literature, and all of the relevant scraps of evidence, constitutes a significant contribution to scholars and students alike. -Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy

Connelly's interpretation is sophisticated, supported by textual evidence that is painstakingly researched, and makes a very welcome addition to the literature. He is to be especially commended on the charitable and generous approach he takes to previous interpretations. [...] As a nearly exhaustive summary of the competing interpretations of Russell's paralysis, and the competing interpretations of his philosophy that generate them, it will be welcomed by all students and scholars of Russell's work. -Russell: the Journal of Bertrand Russell Studies