08 Jun 07
I come across Russell a lot in the philosophy of language, his work on Definite Descriptions and name theory are of major importance. What I like most about him though is his desire to bring philosophy to the masses. He routinely lectured at working men's clubs and his need to get concepts across to the layman is reflected in his language; clear, concise and not bogged down by the use of the philosopher's lexicon.
He's a great introduction to philosophy for anyone thinking of delving into the subject for the first time.
08 Jun 07
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThat's Sir Karl to you.
I heard Depeche Mode gave up on that title as being too high-brow for the fans. A pity, really.
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...
08 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrSee, a perceptive man - Russell had begun to realise Wittgenstein was a genius when everyone else just thought him a bit odd!
Russell 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 f ...[text shortened]... would take his work on definite descriptions and set theory to have revolutionized the field.
My favourite LW story is the one about him being awarded his Cambridge PhD for the Tractatus (which was already famous). Russell and GE Moore were the examiners. They had the viva and were all laughing about how ridiculous the situation was. Moore (I think) made some desultory attempt to criticise it, LW responded, and the "exam" finished with LW putting his hands on both their shoulders and saying something like, "Don't worry, I know you'll never understand it..."
Russell hated LW's later works, though, and accused him of becoming intellectually lazy. I can see why it would have been contrary to everything he held dear about analytic philosophy, but a shame nonetheless, given their previous relationship.
08 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanDammit, this is philosophical logic, not philosophy of language! (And don't try telling me it isn't - I have my fingers in my ears and can't hear you.)
I come across Russell a lot in the philosophy of language, his work on Definite Descriptions and name theory are of major importance.