The aim of the article is presentation and critical analysis of various interpretations of neutral monism (in Bertrand Russell’s version). The subject of the author’s particular interest is the analysis of the main methodological assumptions of neutral monism, which are presented as a method of deriving logical constructions. The article discusses problems inspired by the following questions: What is the declared neutrality of base objects? Is neutral monism a kind of reductionism? Is it an ontological or logical‑epistemological position? What is the place of phenomenal consciousness in the universe of neutral monism? Can neutral monism be reconciled with different versions of emergence theory? Does neutral monism solve the mind‑body problem? Finally, the possibility of non‑standard interpretation of neutral monism is outlined by reference to information theory.

The aim of the paper is to provide an answer to the following question: How to interpret the principle of acquaintance and what role does it play in Bertrand Russell’s epistemology? It seems that the principle itself should be so adjusted as to take into account two concepts: (1) an act of judgment as a multiple relation and (2) the division of reality into what is directly given (sense‑data) and physical objects. I show, contrary to Russell’s assurances, that the content and the role of the principle is not clear, and its acceptance leads to a paradox. Having discovered that consequence, Russell abandoned the dualistic division of reality and with the help of the method of logical constructions, sought a position that embraced phenomena