Bertrand Russell's History Of Western Philosophy

@jack phil,

jack;152391 wrote:

I havn't ever looked at this book, but, from what I have seen by Russell, he spends far too many pages defining words and whatnot.

I guess that is what he is famous for: definitions.

I have read the book, You are mistaken. And Russell was not famous for definitions. I know of no one who is, except maybe a lexicographer who edits dictionaries.

0 Replies

@RDanneskjld,

Well, what he famous for, then?

Responding to my post with 'nuh uh!' is really lackluster, Kennethamy.

I don't know a think he invented or discovered, and he was a bit obsessed with defining math and logic and science and what not (hence, definitions).

1 Reply

@jack phil,

jack;152457 wrote:

Well, what he famous for, then?

Responding to my post with 'nuh uh!' is really lackluster, Kennethamy.

I don't know a think he invented or discovered, and he was a bit obsessed with defining math and logic and science and what not (hence, definitions).

Well, one thing is that he co-authored Principia Mathematica which establish the basis for modern mathematical and symbolic logic. He has made lasting contributions to the philosophy of language and to metaphysics with his, theory of descriptions which has been called, "a paradigm of philosophy". His Harvard Lectures, An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth, can be now read with great profit. His book, the Philosophy of Leibniz, set the basis for modern Leibniz scholarship. Shall I go on? Perhaps you should read a little about him.

Bertrand Russell (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

0 Replies

@RDanneskjld,

Mathematical logic and symbolic logic?

You wouldn't happen to be giving Bertrand Russel credit for Pierce or Frege, would you (among others)? Bertrand Russell did not invent symbolic logic. Maybe you mean something peculiar by "establishing the basis" but if all you mean is he is more popular that the guys that did the work... I stand by my statement.

All you have done on this thread is reiterate what some other webpage has stated. The guy didn't understand Leibniz nor Wittgenstein. And others claim he didn't understand much from Nietzsche, either.

You still really have not answered my question. Especially for giving me a hard time in your first response.

1 Reply

@jack phil,

jack;152476 wrote:

Mathematical logic and symbolic logic?

You wouldn't happen to be giving Bertrand Russel credit for Pierce or Frege, would you (among others)? Bertrand Russell did not invent symbolic logic. Maybe you mean something peculiar by "establishing the basis" but if all you mean is he is more popular that the guys that did the work... I stand by my statement.

All you have done on this thread is reiterate what some other webpage has stated. The guy didn't understand Leibniz nor Wittgenstein. And others claim he didn't understand much from Nietzsche, either.

You still really have not answered my question. Especially for giving me a hard time in your first response.

He established the canonical language in which symbolic logic is expressed. He also argued in PM that logic is the foundation of mathematics, and sought to prove it. Why not look up Principia Mathematica.

What makes you think he did not understand Leibniz or Wittgenstein? And which Wittgenstein. The earlier or the later? I don't understand much about Nietzsche, and that is because there is not much to understand except that God is dead (whatever that means) and everything is perspective (whatever that means). Anything else?

You asked why Russell was such a great philosopher, and I told you. What else did you ask?

0 Replies

@RDanneskjld,

I never asked why he was such a great philosopher. I suggested he wasn't such a great philosopher. I asked why he was famous, and so far I've only heard is the bullshit the illiterate believe (stuff on wiki or stanford).

"He established..." then you know nothing of symbolic logic. What takes Bertie 42 steps takes Pierce 7. What is impossible in Bertie's symbolism is elementary in Wittgenstein's. Etc. etc. etc. And that is just logic, which is often remarked as his strong suit.

I have yet to read an ounce of N, but if all you know is that 'God is dead', then you need to do more research. He preempts Jung in many ways.

Anyhow, I think this conversation is done.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;150503 wrote:

I don't like Russell's views on spirituality that much, but there was no better popular writer on philosophy in the 20th century, with the exception of Will Durant anyway, and besides, he got arrested at age 70 or something for demonstrating against nuclear weapons, and for that he wins my eternal fealty.

Ah yes, he was a pretty good guy really. He had no shortage of guts and idealism. Maybe he was hard on Nietzsche because N was his shadow.. Just think of it: Mr. Logic was a world-saver. Just as N was at bottom a world saver. One was going to save us from pity and cowardice. And the other from confusion?

---------- Post added 04-15-2010 at 07:58 PM ----------

jack;152476 wrote:

And others claim he didn't understand much from Nietzsche, either.

Yes, R was a joke on N, as N had his finger exactly on the R type. "On the Prejudices of Philosophers" could have been written exactly for him. And R doesn't even mention this side of N. He just paints an ugly cartoon. N an as a raging impotent he-man. Well, I've read some of R's bio, and R was a bit of an a** in his personal life, if the books can be believed. Let's just say that he didn't raise a happy family.

And his intro to the TLP seems shallow, way off. If I remember correctly, W didn't want it published w/ that intro.

1 Reply

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;152540 wrote:

Ah yes, he was a pretty good guy really. He had no shortage of guts and idealism. Maybe he was hard on Nietzsche because N was his shadow.. Just think of it: Mr. Logic was a world-saver. Just as N was at bottom a world saver. One was going to save us from pity and cowardice. And the other from confusion?

---------- Post added 04-15-2010 at 07:58 PM ----------

Yes, R was a joke on N, as N had his finger exactly on the R type. "On the Prejudices of Philosophers" could have been written exactly for him. And R doesn't even mention this side of N. He just paints an ugly cartoon. N an as a raging impotent he-man. Well, I've read some of R's bio, and R was a bit of an a** in his personal life, if the books can be believed. Let's just say that he didn't raise a happy family.

And his intro to the TLP seems shallow, way off. If I remember correctly, W didn't want it published w/ that intro.

Except that N. contributed nothing to philosophy, and Russell made an enormous contribution to philosophy. So, it does not matter where N. put his syphyletic fingers. Russell will be remembered when even N.'s contribution to Nazism is forgot. N. was the Werner von Braun of philosophy.

0 Replies

@RDanneskjld,

Well I am sorry about this thread. I think Kenneth and I took it off topic. Kenneth has posted some pretty in-depth stuff on Bertie elsewhere on these boards.

My only point was that I dont much care for what Bertie wrote. Regardless what Wittgenstein or others have said. I note he is incredibly popular, and so is Neitzsche. And I really dont much care for either.

1 Reply

@jack phil,

jack;153061 wrote:

Well I am sorry about this thread. I think Kenneth and I took it off topic. Kenneth has posted some pretty in-depth stuff on Bertie elsewhere on these boards.

My only point was that I dont much care for what Bertie wrote. Regardless what Wittgenstein or others have said. I note he is incredibly popular, and so is Neitzsche. And I really dont much care for either.

What is wrong with being popular? Einstein was also popular (whatever that means)

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;153073 wrote:

What is wrong with being popular? Einstein was also popular (whatever that means)

I got interested in Buddhism a few years ago and started reading a little. The popular Dalai Lama - books seemed all to repeat each-other; by now I could tell books apart any more. It all evolves about one Idea, one vision. It does not need a great Philosopher to motivate people and get an Idea across.

1 Reply

@Pepijn Sweep,

Pepijn Sweep;153129 wrote:

I got interested in Buddhism a few years ago and started reading a little. The popular Dalai Lama - books seemed all to repeat each-other; by now I could tell books apart any more. It all evolves about one Idea, one vision. It does not need a great Philosopher to motivate people and get an Idea across.

And? ......................

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;153570 wrote:

And? ......................

My point was that it's not necessarily the best Philosophers who become popular. Some have great insights but lack the ability to get there ideas across. Especially to lay-people like myself with not recent training in philosophy.

I also read a few 16th century buddhist poems which captures the essence really well and were pleasant to read and ponder upon. Do not know the name of the writer by hart but could look it up.

1 Reply

@Pepijn Sweep,

Pepijn Sweep;153595 wrote:

My point was that it's not necessarily the best Philosophers who become popular. Some have great insights but lack the ability to get there ideas across. Especially to lay-people like myself with not recent training in philosophy.

I also read a few 16th century buddhist poems which captures the essence really well and were pleasant to read and ponder upon. Do not know the name of the writer by hart but could look it up.

No, it is not always the best philosophers who are popular. But that, of course, does not mean that some popular philosophers are not the best philosophers. Popularity has nothing to do with whether a philosopher is a good philosopher or a bad philosopher. Nietzsche was a popular, terrible philosopher, and Russell was a popular, great philosopher. Russell was popular partly because he was a clear writer. He won the Nobel Prize for literature.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Nietzsche was a popular, terrible philosopher, and Russell was a popular, great philosopher. Russell was popular partly because he was a clear writer. He won the Nobel Prize for literature.

Hard to pin down that allusive past simple. Nietzsche was extremely unpopular in his own day and hardly sold a handful of books in his life time. However, over the years his ideas have gone on to influence thinkers and philosophers such as Camus, Satre, Heidegger, Derrida, Foucault, Tillich, Jaspers, Althuser, Freud, Jung, Fromm, Marcuse, Reich, Baudrillard, to name just a few. I think to say his 'philosophy' is terrible must only be a matter of taste. Fortunately, unlike, say, Kissinger or Obama, he never won a Nobel Prize.

0 Replies

@RDanneskjld,

You can find this book for around $9 in the bargain bins of many Borders stores. Pretty decent buy if you want a good overview of western philosophy.

0 Replies

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;129252 wrote:

The way he treats Nietzsche in this book is ridiculous. Talk about refusal to engage. He dwells on what he doesn't like, and mocks it. Thanks, Bert. Next time try harder.

Bertrand Russell is one of my favourite Philosophers (David Hume is definitely top). I love HWP. I've been reading it on and off for ages.

It's quite a known fact that Russell disliked Nietzsche's work. Russell was reportedly so disgusted with Nietzsche's work, that he threw one of Nietzsche's books across the room and did not complete his reading. This, whilst quite funny, was a bit childish and some bias probably came through when writing HWP.

2 Replies

@Bill Maxwell,

I didnt know that. I began reading philosophy with Nietzche. I dont know why but his work made me wonder. Whats the whole thing with the anti-christ?:perplexed:

2 Replies

@topnotcht121,

topnotcht121;160670 wrote:

I didnt know that. I began reading philosophy with Nietzche. I dont know why but his work made me wonder. Whats the whole thing with the anti-christ?:perplexed:

I began reading Philosophy with Russell Razz

Tbh I don't know a great deal about Nietzsche. I've very keen to learn more about him though.

0 Replies

@topnotcht121,

topnotcht121;160670 wrote:

I didnt know that. I began reading philosophy with Nietzche. I dont know why but his work made me wonder. Whats the whole thing with the anti-christ?:perplexed:

Basically Nietzsche focused on the dark side of Christianity. He actually puts Christ in a different category than Christianity. In the Antichrist he is largely attacking Saint Paul.

Nietzsche called himself dynamite, and I think this is a good metaphor. He opens every can of worms he can find. I feel that at his best, he's a first rate philosopher. At his worst, he is still fascinating.

I feel that he is over-rated here and underrated there, if you take my meaning. He's quite a complex personality, I think. And he dwells on exactly those issues that a young person needs to figure out. Also, he writes quite clearly, with a minimum of technicality and a maximum of humor, at least when he isn't ranting. Sometimes he waxes poetic. Sometimes he strikes me as a poet of solitude.

Actually, having read some bio data on both Russell and Nietzsche, I suspect they were both more alike than either would be eager to admit. Both were arrogant world-fixers, it seems to me. But Russell had the pleasures of fame and an audience, as he was, in my eyes, less ahead of his time.

0 Replies

Bertrand Russell's History Of Western Philosophy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know