Russell tries to explain what “corresponds” means by arguing that a belief “corresponds” to a fact when the “terms” in the belief are related to each other in the same way that the respective...

Russell tries to explain what “corresponds” means by arguing that a belief “corresponds” to a fact when the “terms” in the belief are related to each other in the same way that the respective “objects” in the fact are related to each other. The textbook claims that it does not seem that objects (such as people) in a fact can be related to each other in the same way that the terms in a belief are related. How do you think Russell would answer the textbook’s claim? Can you think of a way to defend Russell by suggesting what it might mean to say that the terms of a belief are related to each other in the way that the objects of a fact are related?