Russell, in saying that chairs and persons are "logical fictions," intends to deny that they are also independently existing real entities.
Russell, in saying that chairs and persons are "logical fictions," intends to deny that they are also independently existing real entities.
Russell doesn't deny that chairs and persons are independently existing real entities. He just refuses to affirm it. He refuses, because he thinks that we have no evidence that such entities exist. Our evidence consists only of sensations and experiences -- which are clearly real -- and we can regard our speech about chairs and persons as just a way of talking about these sensations and experiences.
Russell, in saying that chairs and persons are "logical fictions," intends to deny that they are also independently existing real entities.
Russell doesn't deny that chairs and persons are independently existing real entities. He just refuses to affirm it. He refuses, because he thinks that we have no evidence that such entities exist. Our evidence consists only of sensations and experiences -- which are clearly real -- and we can regard our speech about chairs and persons as just a way of talking about these sensations and experiences.