Three Bertrand Russell Quotes

@Trevor C,

Nice. I'm particularly keen on number 3.

0 Replies

@Trevor C,

2 sounds like Wittgenstein

@jgweed,

I like how well these three quotes come to represent Russell's philosophy as a whole (I am not a fan).

1. This is an interesting statement given his attempts to rationalize language and logic to the point where they become truly rational: the human attempt to rationalize the world thus proving he is a rational animal. It didn't work however, as much of Russell's logic and language theory fell short of becoming comprehensive.

2. I think it is funny, simply insofar as there always has to be a solution. Philosophers had been going for 2000 years, I just like the presumption that restating the question solves all of the issues. And excellent eye jgweed, this actually does sound more like Ludwig.

3. Given his later ethical and political writings, this seems to come to represent more his position than that of 'moral luminaries'. Given his preoccupation with disturbing the peace rather than supporting it (his advocation of atheism, his critique of the work ethic) I think this is an interesting moment of self-referentiality.

0 Replies

@jgweed,

jgweed wrote:

2 sounds like Wittgenstein

I recall reading somewhere that Wittgenstein studied under Russell.

1 Reply

@John W Kelly,

John W. Kelly wrote:

I recall reading somewhere that Wittgenstein studied under Russell.

They were colleagues at Cambridge; I don't think he really studied under Russell, but Russell was a mentor to him. But they had some famous fights. And their philosophical "dialogue" with one another is one of the greatest in philosophical history, up there with Plato vs Aristotle, Hume vs Kant, Spinoza vs Leibniz, etc.

0 Replies

@Trevor C,

Russel said some good stuff.

1. is kind of funny, but doesn't really amuse me much

2. makes a good point IMO

3. actually IS funny IMO

0 Replies

@Trevor C,

Trevor_C wrote:

1. It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this.

2. The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating the problem in a way that will allow a solution.

3. The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering with the pleasures of others.

One is nonsense, because the evidence is the search for evidence, and our existence which is every where the result of reason.

Two is true, and said correctly: the solution to the problem is found with the problem correctly stated...

Three is garbage: Variables and value judgements do not ever make for a correct statement of fact... The people, regarded, Luminaries, ordinary, pleasures... It is a junkyard of prejudice parading as judgement... Where is the first term defined, or a second refined???

Let me try to correct this statement: What people concieve of as moral seldom is, and it is most immoral to force morality, because force is itself immoral, and this is because morality flows out of community, and every community is a free association whose first, if not only purpose is to defend the lives of its members, and their freedom, upon which their lives depend, so there is no morality that is not freedom, or directed toward the freedom of the community which in turn depends upon the freedom of the members to sustain it, and those who by force attempt to exclude members on the basis of an ill concieved morality, in fact, exclude themselves from their communities, though they may rule as despots from within, but by the same measure, anyone who does not accept the good and the freedom of the community, and who would take without giving excludes himself from community, for no one can be an outlaw except by choice, and only by choice can one accept the community morality...

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

One is nonsense, because the evidence is the search for evidence, and our existence which is every where the result of reason.

That's idealistic. If we were rational animals, then this would apply to our behavior and not just philosophical musings. Turn on CNN for 5 minutes to see how rational we are. If by rational animals you mean we use logic and thought to solve problems, then I have a rat running through a maze that I'd like you to meet.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

That's idealistic. If we were rational animals, then this would apply to our behavior and not just philosophical musings. Turn on CNN for 5 minutes to see how rational we are. If by rational animals you mean we use logic and thought to solve problems, then I have a rat running through a maze that I'd like you to meet.

Sir in every meaningful sense we are rational, and the only dangerously insane people on the planet are rational without reference to emotion which is the glue that binds all people to humanity. But, to talk of us as a species, what is more evident is what Aristotle says in Metaphysics that "All men naturally desire knowledge"... We are knowing animals because we can only reason with what we know, and our knowledge lodged in the form of form, ideas, institutions, cultures and communities is added to at every turn by every generation which makes our calculations of even the most bizzare relationships possible... We are troubled by our irrationality, but there is always a dynamic at work, different perceptions of self, different selves at work, different perceptions of self interest, long term self interest as opposed to short term self interest...It is not that any two people are not logical, but that their logic is usally out of sync -that presents the problem, or that, as is always the case, that knowledge is not complete. In this sense knowledge is virtue, because it is upon what people know that they reason, and false knowledge, which is ignorance with a sense of authority creates garbage logic.... And I say this understanding that I am not particularly logical compared to a very logical person... My approach is to know all I can about what is, so that my speculation at any point can rule out what is unlikely while my imagination, or intuition is free to jump to impossible conclusions that knowledge can dismiss or at least challenge..

As for your rat...We have a lot in common...Trial and error has been the fundamental educator of mankind, and it is logical to try anything when nothing seems to help... Even bad medicine is medicine.

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Sir in every meaningful sense we are rational, and the only dangerously insane people on the planet are rational without reference to emotion which is the glue that binds all people to humanity.

That is because reason is subordinate to emotion. We are rational only as much as our emotions, our biology, and our openmindedness allows us to be.

Quote:

"All men naturally desire knowledge"

Even if that is true (which I do not concede), how does the desire of knowledge imply that we are rational?

Quote:

We are knowing animals because we can only reason with what we know, and our knowledge lodged in the form of form, ideas, institutions, cultures and communities is added to at every turn by every generation which makes our calculations of even the most bizzare relationships possible

We also reason with intuitions and experience, which is how you can adapt to new situations you've never experienced. And that happens in animals too.

Quote:

We are troubled by our irrationality

Right, because we're in denial that our irrationality in the end will always defeat our rationality if the two come into conflict. Our one talent in this regard is to rationalize, i.e. convince ourselves that something irrational was actually rational.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

That is because reason is subordinate to emotion. We are rational only as much as our emotions, our biology, and our openmindedness allows us to be.

Even if that is true (which I do not concede), how does the desire of knowledge imply that we are rational?

We also reason with intuitions and experience, which is how you can adapt to new situations you've never experienced. And that happens in animals too.

Right, because we're in denial that our irrationality in the end will always defeat our rationality if the two come into conflict. Our one talent in this regard is to rationalize, i.e. convince ourselves that something irrational was actually rational.

There is nothing inherently irrational about emotion... What emotion desires reason achieves; but it is not unreasonable to seek what is at the basis of all emotion: a happy self, even if the self is apprehended by emotions... Who we are is not thought, but emotion, but is it some how unreasonable to value ourselves and our lives highly???
Our desire for knowledge shows rationality in the same sense that we put one before two, and first before last, in that knowledge is essential to reason, so we first seek knowledge so reason will empower us... reason does not work without facts: GIGO
Considering the selves at work with all the variable goals of reason it is a wonder anything seems reaonable, but the only unreasonable activity leads to self destruction, which people can arrive at en mass by quite reasonable steps, but then, the long view is what makes philosophy...

2 Replies

@Fido,

Aedes; If a guy is on his way to do a mass murder, and he washes the dishes, and sweeps the floor, and turns out the lights and locks the door, and does not forget his weapon or his ammo or his keys is his problem one of logic, or of emotion??? People make rational calculations all the time.. That is not the problem, but what is a problem is the emotional connectedness people feel for people, and we are not becoming less isolated and lonely and individual and disconnected; but more so, and this makes us clearly dangerous... Every balanced individual is both emotional and rational, in not equal measure, but in appropriate measure...

0 Replies

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

There is nothing inherently irrational about emotion... What emotion desires reason achieves; but it is not unreasonable to seek what is at the basis of all emotion: a happy self, even if the self is apprehended by emotions...

A very Aristotelian conclusion, which I don't buy. It's a teleological statement to assume that the quest for contentment underlies what we do, just as much of the rest of Aristotle's speculation is flawed by teleology. The only things in all of nature that happen in order to achieve a goal are things that are consciously decided. And you don't consciously decide to become happy or sad -- it happens naturally because of circumstances.

Do you really believe that love, rage, fear, amusement, etc are inherently rational?

And if, as you say, our reason functions to actualize what emotion stimulates in us, then you corroborate my point that reason is subordinate to emotion.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

A very Aristotelian conclusion, which I don't buy. It's a teleological statement to assume that the quest for contentment underlies what we do, just as much of the rest of Aristotle's speculation is flawed by teleology. The only things in all of nature that happen in order to achieve a goal are things that are consciously decided. And you don't consciously decide to become happy or sad -- it happens naturally because of circumstances.

Do you really believe that love, rage, fear, amusement, etc are inherently rational?

And if, as you say, our reason functions to actualize what emotion stimulates in us, then you corroborate my point that reason is subordinate to emotion.

I believe those emotions absolutly reasonable if they are appropriate, and the mark of a mentally ill person is that they are not... If something should make you angry, if it is an affront or an injury people should get angry, but not enraged if the injury is small... And I would not say subordinate, but at time secondary, and since the situations of life are not so simple that you can get a simple cause and effect, what you get is a cycle, it is continuous of feeling and being motivated to think, and thought giving rise to a different situation and the situation giving rise to an emotion and the emotion motivating to thought... If you have ever seen a shrink you might find that people do at times go in a circle with their lives repeating their mistakes, feeling bad, think about a solution, but not a different or correct solution and back with the problem again and again... In such a cycle who can say what is subordinate, or primary... Clearly, we do not face many of the same situations our fathers did, and we usually think differently than they in the same situation, but, to use an example from my past, though my technique of hunting differed from theirs, to track and kill a deer brought forth similar emotions of triumph, regret, gratitude, and awe.

Not Aristotle, btw, but Aristippus, a student of Socrates and a marvel on his own... But it is only obvious...No less that bunnies we seek the good, but what makes us different is the use of reason to reach the good...

0 Replies

@Trevor C,

Wasn't it Bertrand Russell who wondered why God created the tapeworm? Wonder why ole berty wondered that?

1 Reply

@Elmud,

Elmud wrote:

Wasn't it Bertrand Russell who wondered why God created the tapeworm? Wonder why ole berty wondered that?

He could not have been much of a philosopher if he believed that the tape worm was created by God... That sort of nonsense: human life is created at birth, is metaphysics, and a branch of theology....

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

He could not have been much of a philosopher if he believed that the tape worm was created by God... That sort of nonsense: human life is created at birth, is metaphysics, and a branch of theology....

Naw Fido, he was an athiest. I think, if I remember, the book was entitled, why I do not believe in God. So many years ago. Hard to remember. I think he was just throwing out a few examples as to the why of his philosophy.

0 Replies

@Trevor C,

Again; why would a philosopher, and mind you, I have read his history, and like the guy; but why would a philosopher ever doubt the existence of God on the basis of Apparent stupidity on the part of God... From our perspective something is always going to seem stupid... The tape worm might take a similar view since our lives are his life...I had a lot of bosses in my day who did stupid stuff... I did stupid stuff too... But little people make little mistakes...Does the fact that what others do is beyond belief negate their existence... Just as likely; they will put the blame for their stupidity on some one else and the little guy will be history....

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Again; why would a philosopher, and mind you, I have read his history, and like the guy; but why would a philosopher ever doubt the existence of God on the basis of Apparent stupidity on the part of God... From our perspective something is always going to seem stupid... The tape worm might take a similar view since our lives are his life...I had a lot of bosses in my day who did stupid stuff... I did stupid stuff too... But little people make little mistakes...Does the fact that what others do is beyond belief negate their existence... Just as likely; they will put the blame for their stupidity on some one else and the little guy will be history....

I don't know Fido. You'd have to ask Berty.

0 Replies

Three Bertrand Russell Quotes

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know