and Philosophy, December 1927, p 14.
Jim acknowledged that there were 'difficulties' with certain aspects of Anderson's philosophy and he openly admitted to having 'criticisms here and there' with Anderson's presentation of realism. I do, too. I now think there are some fundamental weaknesses with Anderson's philosophy that prevent it from being fully coherent and internally consistent as a systematic realism (eg a certain undisclosed idealism, problems with Anderson's treatment of negative propositions, the essential unspeakability of the categories, etc). However, that is not important for present purposes. Jim always ackowledged the greatness of Anderson, and the depth of his thinking, without ever treating him as if he were a God ('the Master') and his teaching some sort of sacred doctrine. In short, Jim was very much his own man and not a sycophantic follower of his former teacher.
Note. Since writing this post, a well-written obituary for Jim Baker, penned by the Australian businessman and former trade union official Dr Michael Easson AM, who is also a member of the Sydney Realists, has appeared in The Sydney Morning Herald. IEJ. March 25, 2017.