5 ms·

Bertrand Russell is great. He's an outstanding philosopher in his own right and thus equipped to be a great interpreter of others. If you tire of that there are

Bertrand Russell is great. He's an outstanding philosopher in his own right and thus equipped to be a great interpreter of others. If you tire of that there are always his tart opinions on philosophers like Nietzche.

Amezarak 4y ago
Russell's opinions of Nietzsche border on libel. I had a lot of respect for Russell until I read this book and discovered that he either misunderstood Nietzsche extremely badly for some reason (emotional response?), and/or felt no compunctions about deliberately lying about him. That really woke me up to reading him more critically, at which point I discovered he is mostly just okay, and certainly not great. He is trapped in a peculiar anglo-pseudo-rationalist view and cannot see out of it.
- daviddaviddavid 4y ago
  "mostly just okay, and certainly not great" The guy cowrote Principia Mathematica AND won the Nobel prize in literature. He pretty much destroyed Frege's life's work in a witty little personal letter that could've fit on a napkin. He's one of those rare thinkers that did so much that if he only did a tenth of what he actually did he'd still be considered great.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > He pretty much destroyed Frege's life's work This is a gross exaggeration, and not something that Russell himself would agree with.
    - daviddaviddavid 4y ago
      Here is a the letter from Russel to Jean van Heijenoort in response to the latter's request to print the correspondence between Russell/Frege in "From Frege to Godel" (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-paradox/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-paradox/). ---- As I think about acts of integrity and grace, I realise that there is nothing in my knowledge to compare with Frege’s dedication to truth. His entire life’s work was on the verge of completion, much of his work had been ignored to the benefit of men infinitely less capable, his second volume was about to be published, and upon finding that his fundamental assumption was in error, he responded with intellectual pleasure clearly submerging any feelings of personal disappointment. It was almost superhuman and a telling indication of that of which men are capable if their dedication is to creative work and knowledge instead of cruder efforts to dominate and be known. (Quoted in van Heijenoort (1967), 127)
      - lapcat 4y ago
        Russell's paradox didn't "destroy" Frege's life work any more than it destroyed Russell's own life work, or set theory in general. Of course it was a problem, and everyone came up with their own workaround. I should say that I don't agree with the OP's opinion that Russell is "not great", but there's no need to exaggerate Russell's importance in order to prove it. Not to mention that the Nobel Prize in literature isn't awarded for philosophical achievement, so that's largely irrelevant.
- yesenadam 4y ago
  > Russell's opinions of Nietzsche border on libel. Gee, Nietzsche's opinions of almost everyone go well past the libel border, and that's no exaggeration. Russell's History is a good read, lots of good jokes as usual, but there are much fairer and more accurate histories of philosophy. e.g. I like Copleston's multi-volume History of Philosophy, or reading in the Stanford encyc of philosophy on particular topics/people. https://plato.stanford.edu/ https://plato.stanford.edu/ My favourite historical philosophy book is Santayana's Egotism in German Philosophy[0], which covers from Leibniz to the Nazi philosophy - and was written in 1916! Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche etc. Santayana's sense of humour is much more gentle than Russell or Nietzsche's, more a wise twinkle in his eye. For example, Ch.2 The Protestant Heritage begins: "The German people, according to Fichte and Hegel, are called by the plan of Providence to occupy the supreme place in the history of the universe. A little consideration of this belief will perhaps lead us more surely to the heart of German philosophy than would the usual laborious approach to it through what is called the theory of knowledge." - comedic genius. He wrote other great historical surveys, e.g. Winds of Doctrine and Character and Opinion in the U.S. When I read him, on Emerson or Nietzsche, say, I'm always amazed how he puts his finger on the crux of the matter so elegantly, and describes so clearly what others can't even see. [0] https://archive.org/details/egotismingermanp48431gut https://archive.org/details/egotismingermanp48431gut (Am a huge fan of both Russell and Nietzsche, they're both among my favourite writers of prose.)
  - lapcat 4y ago
    Also Russell: "I have not found in Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations anything that seemed to me interesting"
    - yesenadam 4y ago
      I'm not sure what your point is. The quote is from My Philosophical Development, and the chapter it's from, Some Replies to Criticism, is worth a read. https://archive.org/details/myphilosophicald0000russ/page/214/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/myphilosophicald0000russ/page/21... (must be 'borrowed' to read) There's a whole other chapter on Wittgenstein, The Impact of Wittgenstein. https://archive.org/details/myphilosophicald0000russ/page/110/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/myphilosophicald0000russ/page/11...
- hectorlorenzo 4y ago
  https://existentialcomics.com/comic/149 https://existentialcomics.com/comic/149
  - B1FF_PSUVM 4y ago
    Thank you, these are amusing. Caveat: https://existentialcomics.com/comic/485 https://existentialcomics.com/comic/485 - "If you really want to help the long term future of humanity, you should probably just become a communist like a normal person."
    - hectorlorenzo 4y ago
      One man's caveat is another man's nodding approvingly.

Amezarak 4y ago

Russell's opinions of Nietzsche border on libel. I had a lot of respect for Russell until I read this book and discovered that he either misunderstood Nietzsche extremely badly for some reason (emotional response?), and/or felt no compunctions about deliberately lying about him. That really woke me up to reading him more critically, at which point I discovered he is mostly just okay, and certainly not great. He is trapped in a peculiar anglo-pseudo-rationalist view and cannot see out of it.

daviddaviddavid 4y ago
"mostly just okay, and certainly not great" The guy cowrote Principia Mathematica AND won the Nobel prize in literature. He pretty much destroyed Frege's life's work in a witty little personal letter that could've fit on a napkin. He's one of those rare thinkers that did so much that if he only did a tenth of what he actually did he'd still be considered great.
- lapcat 4y ago
  > He pretty much destroyed Frege's life's work This is a gross exaggeration, and not something that Russell himself would agree with.
  - daviddaviddavid 4y ago
    Here is a the letter from Russel to Jean van Heijenoort in response to the latter's request to print the correspondence between Russell/Frege in "From Frege to Godel" (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-paradox/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-paradox/). ---- As I think about acts of integrity and grace, I realise that there is nothing in my knowledge to compare with Frege’s dedication to truth. His entire life’s work was on the verge of completion, much of his work had been ignored to the benefit of men infinitely less capable, his second volume was about to be published, and upon finding that his fundamental assumption was in error, he responded with intellectual pleasure clearly submerging any feelings of personal disappointment. It was almost superhuman and a telling indication of that of which men are capable if their dedication is to creative work and knowledge instead of cruder efforts to dominate and be known. (Quoted in van Heijenoort (1967), 127)
    - lapcat 4y ago
      Russell's paradox didn't "destroy" Frege's life work any more than it destroyed Russell's own life work, or set theory in general. Of course it was a problem, and everyone came up with their own workaround. I should say that I don't agree with the OP's opinion that Russell is "not great", but there's no need to exaggerate Russell's importance in order to prove it. Not to mention that the Nobel Prize in literature isn't awarded for philosophical achievement, so that's largely irrelevant.
yesenadam 4y ago
> Russell's opinions of Nietzsche border on libel. Gee, Nietzsche's opinions of almost everyone go well past the libel border, and that's no exaggeration. Russell's History is a good read, lots of good jokes as usual, but there are much fairer and more accurate histories of philosophy. e.g. I like Copleston's multi-volume History of Philosophy, or reading in the Stanford encyc of philosophy on particular topics/people. https://plato.stanford.edu/ https://plato.stanford.edu/ My favourite historical philosophy book is Santayana's Egotism in German Philosophy[0], which covers from Leibniz to the Nazi philosophy - and was written in 1916! Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche etc. Santayana's sense of humour is much more gentle than Russell or Nietzsche's, more a wise twinkle in his eye. For example, Ch.2 The Protestant Heritage begins: "The German people, according to Fichte and Hegel, are called by the plan of Providence to occupy the supreme place in the history of the universe. A little consideration of this belief will perhaps lead us more surely to the heart of German philosophy than would the usual laborious approach to it through what is called the theory of knowledge." - comedic genius. He wrote other great historical surveys, e.g. Winds of Doctrine and Character and Opinion in the U.S. When I read him, on Emerson or Nietzsche, say, I'm always amazed how he puts his finger on the crux of the matter so elegantly, and describes so clearly what others can't even see. [0] https://archive.org/details/egotismingermanp48431gut https://archive.org/details/egotismingermanp48431gut (Am a huge fan of both Russell and Nietzsche, they're both among my favourite writers of prose.)
- lapcat 4y ago
  Also Russell: "I have not found in Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations anything that seemed to me interesting"
  - yesenadam 4y ago
    I'm not sure what your point is. The quote is from My Philosophical Development, and the chapter it's from, Some Replies to Criticism, is worth a read. https://archive.org/details/myphilosophicald0000russ/page/214/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/myphilosophicald0000russ/page/21... (must be 'borrowed' to read) There's a whole other chapter on Wittgenstein, The Impact of Wittgenstein. https://archive.org/details/myphilosophicald0000russ/page/110/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/myphilosophicald0000russ/page/11...
hectorlorenzo 4y ago
https://existentialcomics.com/comic/149 https://existentialcomics.com/comic/149
- B1FF_PSUVM 4y ago
  Thank you, these are amusing. Caveat: https://existentialcomics.com/comic/485 https://existentialcomics.com/comic/485 - "If you really want to help the long term future of humanity, you should probably just become a communist like a normal person."
  - hectorlorenzo 4y ago
    One man's caveat is another man's nodding approvingly.