Originally posted by knightmeisterOld Bert missed the point, that we do put up statues for "murderers" , only we call them soldiers and statesmen.
"If when a man writes a poem or commits a murder, the bodily movements involved in his act result solely from physical causes, it would seem absurd to put up a statue to him in the one case and to hang him in the other" -- Bertrand Russell
Agree?
and btw , a hell of a lot more statues are put up for them fellows than there ever was for poets.
Originally posted by knightmeisterDo yourself a favor and read the essay.
"If when a man writes a poem or commits a murder, the bodily movements involved in his act result solely from physical causes, it would seem absurd to put up a statue to him in the one case and to hang him in the other" -- Bertrand Russell
Agree?
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell2.htm
The section containing that quote begins under the heading
"The Doctrine of Free Will."
Originally posted by dottewellI'm not against Bert. I like the fellow. I think it's a lucid point he is making . It is absurd if there is nothing more to this world than physical laws , cosmic dice and determinism. He was one step away from theism , he just didn't know it.
You've taken the quote horribly, horribly out of context.
You should ask if people agree with the quote or not. Not whether they agree with Russell or not.
Originally posted by telerionWhat gives you that idea?
Does a xian praise Jesus at the loss of a child?
Did I exult because the poor delluded Betrand Russell's son died?
I simply mentioned that Russell's honest confession of how his undaunted humanist optimism was hurt by this tragedy.
I take no pleasure in the death of anyone's child.
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterHere's the ironic thing.
I'm not against Bert. I like the fellow. I think it's a lucid point he is making . It is absurd if there is nothing more to this world than physical laws , cosmic dice and determinism. He was one step away from theism , he just didn't know it.
Bertrand Russell was a not-quite-great philosopher. And he knew this. But in many ways he is the greatest example a not-great-at-all philosopher could follow. Why? Because he had massive intellectual curiousity. Throughout his life he was receptive to new ideas. He was rigorous in his thought. He loved clarity. And above all, he was - perhaps more than any other not-quite-great philosopher - prepared to admit he was wrong, and to start again, as (in his view) the arguments and evidence demanded.
Now, you're a not-great-at-all philosopher (no shame in this - I'm in this category, along with >99.999 per cent of others.) And yet you have no intellectual curiousity whatsoever. You're not receptive to new ideas. You are not rigorous in your thought. You constantly miss or avoid the point. Above all, you are simply incapable of admitting you are wrong - even on something like this, where if you simply read the essay (the link has been provided above), it would be perfectly obvious how the quote fits in.
You are one giant step away from Russell, and in the wrong direction; and not only do you not know it, but you never will.
As such - as far as anyone with any degree of intellectual honesty and curiousity about the universe is concerned - you are a recruiting sergeant for atheism.
Originally posted by dottewell"A recruiting sergeant came up to me"...I'd love to see the poster.
Here's the ironic thing.
Bertrand Russell was a not-quite-great philosopher. And he knew this. But in many ways he is the greatest example a not-great-at-all philosopher could follow. Why? Because he had massive intellectual curiousity. Throughout his life he was receptive to new ideas. He was rigorous in his thought. He loved clarity. And above all, he ...[text shortened]... and curiousity about the universe is concerned - you are a recruiting sergeant for atheism.
(My problem as a not-great-at-all-philosopher, with regard to Russell, is that he is too boring to read. I reserve my enthusiasm for the likes of Nietzsche and the late Wittgenstein, who are probably poets more than philosophers. I use them as a means for seeing into my own head. Narcissistic. Obviously. Or I wouldn't have said this.)
Originally posted by Bosse de NageHis best work was in logic, so you probably wouldn't want to read it! I actually think of him as a highly readable philosopher, but perhaps there's an element of taste - plus of course it depends on which other philosophers you read.
"A recruiting sergeant came up to me"...I'd love to see the poster.
(My problem as a not-great-at-all-philosopher, with regard to Russell, is that he is too boring to read. I reserve my enthusiasm for the likes of Nietzsche and the late Wittgenstein, who are probably poets more than philosophers. I use them as a means for seeing into my own head. Narcissistic. Obviously. Or I wouldn't have said this.)
Can't believe anyone wouldn't enjoy his History of Western Philosophy, though.
The later Wittgenstein was in my opinion a very great philosopher indeed. But then he was, essentially, my intellectual Jesus.
Originally posted by dottewellI heard Depeche Mode gave up on that title as being too high-brow for the fans. A pity, really.
But then he was, essentially, my intellectual Jesus.
Do you go in for Karl Popper? I have "The Open Society and its Enemies (Vol 2)" on my shelf (rescued from a bargain bin) and am contemplating cracking it open...
Originally posted by Bosse de NageBizarrely I tried to read that when I was about 16 (I stole the sole copy from my school's history department), and didn't get very far - then didn't encounter Popper again until I (briefly) studied the philosophy of science.
Do you go in for Karl Popper? I have "The Open Society and its Enemies (Vol 2)" on my shelf (rescued from a bargain bin) and am contemplating cracking it open...
Never got round to reading it, or Vol 1 either, after that.
Originally posted by dottewellRussell on Wittgenstein: "...obstinate and perverse, but I think not stupid." Witgenstein was amazing, and his later work, particularly the rule-following considerations and the notion of a form of life, are just now being fruitfully discussed in ethics. His work is at least partially responsible for the rise of virtue ethics and particularism in the last few decades. Russell never blew me away philosophically, but I certainly enjoyed his social criticism. That said, many people would take his work on definite descriptions and set theory to have revolutionized the field.
His best work was in logic, so you probably wouldn't want to read it! I actually think of him as a highly readable philosopher, but perhaps there's an element of taste - plus of course it depends on which other philosophers you read.
Can't believe anyone wouldn't enjoy his History of Western Philosophy, though.
The later Wittgenstein was in my opinion a very great philosopher indeed. But then he was, essentially, my intellectual Jesus.
Originally posted by dottewellHas anyone published anything on the pathology of book theft I wonder.
Bizarrely I tried to read that when I was about 16 (I stole the sole copy from my school's history department), and didn't get very far - then didn't encounter Popper again until I (briefly) studied the philosophy of science.
Never got round to reading it, or Vol 1 either, after that.