• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bertrand Russell's thoughts on what philosophy should entail

Riveroaks said:
What say you?
Click to expand...

All pre-21st Century philosophers are wrong by definition. They were unaware of reality shown by scientific examination of the world.

That doesn't mean they didn't contribute some worthy view of the world... but they were wrong nonetheless.

There's an exception for the pre-Socratics because they were operating on thought alone, free from the curse of humanity that would come later... what we now call religion.

Given that humans are irrelevant to the universe --- my theory of Cosmological Reality -- any philosophy is wrong if it does not comprehend the reality of the universe as science is showing it to us.
 
Paralogic said:
All pre-21st Century philosophers are wrong by definition. They were unaware of reality shown by scientific examination of the world.

That doesn't mean they didn't contribute some worthy view of the world... but they were wrong nonetheless.

There's an exception for the pre-Socratics because they were operating on thought alone, free from the curse of humanity that would come later... what we now call religion.

Given that humans are irrelevant to the universe --- my theory of Cosmological Reality -- any philosophy is wrong if it does not comprehend the reality of the universe as science is showing it to us.
Click to expand...

Interesting speculative philosophy on your part, Para.

So then the most salient question regarding your philosophical system is --

- Did the Universe create the Gods like the ancient Greeks believed (Gai + Ouranos = Titans > Olympians)?

- or did God(s) create the Universe like Moses believed?

- was the Universe created for man?

- or was man created for the universe?


What say you?

How are you going to work this out epistemologically and metaphysically?

You can leave ethically, politically and mathematically aside for now.

But don't forget logically, whether deductively or inductively or indirectly.
 
Last edited:
Riveroaks said:
Bertrand Russell's book, "The History Of Western Philosophy," Simon & Schuster 1945, is mostly an extended info-mercial advertising his other books on philosophy about his own "school."

He goes through and surveys as well as comments on all the leading philosophers that have gone before him however, from Thales (624 - 546 BC) the Greek, to John Dewey (1859 - 1952 CE) the American.

In the last chapter of the book, Russell observes the following in his commentary:

- "In abandoning a part of its dogmatic pretentions, philosophy does not cease to suggest an inspired way of life."

- "I do not myself believe that philosophy can either prove or disprove the truth of religious dogmas, but ever since Plato, most philosophers have considered it part of their business to produce proofs of immortality and of the existence of God."

- "Philosophy throughout its history has consisted of two parts, inharmoniously blended -- on the one hand a theory as to the nature of
the world -- on the other an ethical or political doctrine as to the best way of living."

His book is like all other surveys -- very long and tedious. But if you like reading philosophy, it is a great tour though the world history of philosophy. He also ads personal notes on the lives of the various philosophers themselves, what they did for a living, how they spent their time, where they got their endowments from. I got my copy of the book in stock off the philosophy shelves at Barnes & Noble Booksellers.

I completely agree with Russell on these points, and for myself philosophy has taught me how to think, how not to think, what to think, what not to think, how to live, and how not to live.

This has freed my mind from the Catholic and Protestant dogmas of my parents.

What say you?
Click to expand...

I have found that philosophy has taught me how to think, but not WHAT to think or not think.

I have used philosophy more like a framework to use in order to assume different positions to search their worth.

Usually, the exercise of philosophical thinking and challenge will undermine the positions of any ideologue be they couched in religion or politics.

In the end, though, we all embrace those things that comfort us.
 
code1211 said:
I have found that philosophy has taught me how to think, but not WHAT to think or not think.

I have used philosophy more like a framework to use in order to assume different positions to search their worth.

Usually, the exercise of philosophical thinking and challenge will undermine the positions of any ideologue be they couched in religion or politics.

In the end, though, we all embrace those things that comfort us.
Click to expand...

Exactly !!!

You have found the true purpose in philosophy !!!

One of the most religious fanatics that I have ever met claimed we do not need philosophy because religion is sufficient for our lives.

He fails to see that by denying philosophy he has surrendered with no defense against religious fanaticism. Coincidentally he lives near Salt Lake City.
 
Riveroaks said:
Exactly !!!

You have found the true purpose in philosophy !!!

One of the most religious fanatics that I have ever met claimed we do not need philosophy because religion is sufficient for our lives.

He fails to see that by denying philosophy he has surrendered with no defense against religious fanaticism. Coincidentally he lives near Salt Lake City.
Click to expand...

Religion, I have found quite suddenly, is a very helpful and comforting tool to keep in your box to help with the bumps and pot holes that life puts in your road.

Philosophy is another tool that is equally helpful.

I'm not sure that either is helpful without the other. They are both guides for thinking and qualifiers that help to decipher the new or unusual. The old saying that there are no atheists in foxholes may explain what I mean better than I can say it.

We pick and choose those things that we find to be helpful at any particular moment. Sometimes we acquire the vision of a goal that we wish we could attain. This sometimes rises only from the observation, but usually rises from inner desire to be better after some fashion.

Philosophy and religion very often are the things that define what is the "better". Philosophy and religion in turn, I feel, alternate depending on the situation, as either the conduit or the energy that flows through it. Untangling philosophy from religion is challenging for me. However, in my own life, I was mostly reliant on religion and then discarded it in favor of philosophy. Of late, the goal of attaining the "better" for myself has included the idea that religion will play a larger role than it has in the past.

Two reasons for this: I have become more humble in my own view of myself and God seems to have a sense of humor and seems to like to allow us to laugh at ourselves.

Strictly speaking on the method of thinking, philosophy teaches us to ask questions while religion teaches us to accept answers. However, philosophy is more of an inner reflective pursuit while religion, by definition, demands social interaction. Either method, always asking questions or always accepting the "truth" seems dangerous. Pick and choose.

As a youth, I thought philosophy and religion were mutually exclusive and now find they are essentially joined. The relative density of my head precludes a quick grasp of this kind of a complex mixing of complex ideas.
 
code1211 said:
Religion, I have found quite suddenly, is a very helpful and comforting tool to keep in your box to help with the bumps and pot holes that life puts in your road.

Philosophy is another tool that is equally helpful.

I'm not sure that either is helpful without the other. They are both guides for thinking and qualifiers that help to decipher the new or unusual. The old saying that there are no atheists in foxholes may explain what I mean better than I can say it.

We pick and choose those things that we find to be helpful at any particular moment. Sometimes we acquire the vision of a goal that we wish we could attain. This sometimes rises only from the observation, but usually rises from inner desire to be better after some fashion.

Philosophy and religion very often are the things that define what is the "better". Philosophy and religion in turn, I feel, alternate depending on the situation, as either the conduit or the energy that flows through it. Untangling philosophy from religion is challenging for me. However, in my own life, I was mostly reliant on religion and then discarded it in favor of philosophy. Of late, the goal of attaining the "better" for myself has included the idea that religion will play a larger role than it has in the past.

Two reasons for this: I have become more humble in my own view of myself and God seems to have a sense of humor and seems to like to allow us to laugh at ourselves.

Strictly speaking on the method of thinking, philosophy teaches us to ask questions while religion teaches us to accept answers. However, philosophy is more of an inner reflective pursuit while religion, by definition, demands social interaction. Either method, always asking questions or always accepting the "truth" seems dangerous. Pick and choose.

As a youth, I thought philosophy and religion were mutually exclusive and now find they are essentially joined. The relative density of my head precludes a quick grasp of this kind of a complex mixing of complex ideas.
Click to expand...

When you join religion and philosophy, like Augustine and Aquinas did, you get what is termed romantic philosophy. I don't have a problem with it, but like Plato who also tries to join them, it only weakens your philosophy if you take that too far.

I appreciate Aquinas' proofs of God, and his #5 is one that I even formulated myself a slightly different way in Catholic High School.

But you are correct that philosophy and religion are both helpful to most people. Atheists don't seem to need religion normally because their needs have all been met their whole lives long and they have never had to confront any difficult challenges. They have led easy pampered lives. They don't even seem to feel the impulse to give thanks for what Providence has given them. Such is a corrupt and ungrateful mind.

For philosophy my main resource is Descartes, somewhat modernized with scientific Empiricism and modified to give animals souls like us. My cat has a soul, no doubt. What happens to cat souls I cannot say. The Buddhists are probably right -- that cat souls transmigrate. The Greek New Testament is silent on animals' souls.

For religion my main resource is the Greek New Testament in Greek. I don't like to rely on any English translations. I prefer to read literal English subtitles and translate from Greek myself.

Everyone needs to be cognizant of Empirical science as well, although NOT translating it into a new religion like Steven Hawking and Albert Einstein try to do together with their sophist test tube copy cat minions. Science is simply a list of humanity's Empirical observations from which there is another list of inferences drawn about them all and called hypotheses, theories, and "laws."

All this is what philosophy and clear logical thinking has taught me.

I enjoyed reading both of your responses. Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Riveroaks said:
When you join religion and philosophy, like Augustine and Aquinas did, you get what is termed romantic philosophy. I don't have a problem with it, but like Plato who also tries to join them, it only weakens your philosophy if you take that too far.

I appreciate Aquinas' proofs of God, and his #5 is one that I even formulated myself a slightly different way in Catholic High School.

But you are correct that philosophy and religion are both helpful to most people. Atheists don't seem to need religion normally because their needs have all been met their whole lives long and they have never had to confront any difficult challenges. They have led easy pampered lives. They don't even seem to feel the impulse to give thanks for what Providence has given them. Such is a corrupt and ungrateful mind.

For philosophy my main resource is Descartes, somewhat modernized with scientific Empiricism and modified to give animals souls like us. My cat has a soul, no doubt. What happens to cat souls I cannot say. The Buddhists are probably right -- that cat souls transmigrate. The Greek New Testament is silent on animals' souls.

For religion my main resource is the Greek New Testament in Greek. I don't like to rely on any English translations. I prefer to read literal English subtitles and translate from Greek myself.

Everyone needs to be cognizant of Empirical science as well, although NOT translating it into a new religion like Steven Hawking and Albert Einstein try to do together with their sophist test tube copy cat minions. Science is simply a list of humanity's Empirical observations from which there is another list of inferences drawn about them all and called hypotheses, theories, and "laws."

All this is what philosophy and clear logical thinking has taught me.

I enjoyed reading both of your responses. Thank you.
Click to expand...

You are on a level of education, knowledge and wisdom which I admire. Being that brainy requires a discipline and application that has never been my strength. However, I'm old and that counts for something.

I take your compliment as high praise as I continue to blunder around trying to figure out what I'm doing and why.

I appreciate both your time and your consideration. I am humbled by you taking the time to respond.
 
code1211 said:
You are on a level of education, knowledge and wisdom which I admire. Being that brainy requires a discipline and application that has never been my strength. However, I'm old and that counts for something.

I take your compliment as high praise as I continue to blunder around trying to figure out what I'm doing and why.

I appreciate both your time and your consideration. I am humbled by you taking the time to respond.
Click to expand...

I just read a lot. And I love philosophy -- always have.
 
Riveroaks said:
What say you?
Click to expand...

Humans are irrelevant to the universe. That much is easily proven.

That's why all pre 21st Century philosophers are wrong. Not because they tried to figure out reality, but only because they did not know the result of Physics that we are now aware of.
 
Paralogic said:
Humans are irrelevant to the universe. That much is easily proven.

That's why all pre 21st Century philosophers are wrong. Not because they tried to figure out reality, but only because they did not know the result of Physics that we are now aware of.
Click to expand...

Empiricism has come a long way indeed and has taken out of the realm of philosophical speculation much of what had been debated before.

But the rest of your statement is a very hasty generalization and as such it is unsupported and fails.

It sounds more like a convenient excuse to avoid studying the history of philosophy.

The earliest philosophers were simply speculating about science. They did not have the tools and instruments to probe any deeper.

Starting with Plato he and others tried to influence the world for the better, rather than pore over the thought process purely. Russell condemns him for it.

Aristotle his student became extremely rigid and did not encourage any Empiricism at all, so science stalled for nearly a millennium.

With Galileo and Copernicus that all began to change.

Skepticism was rabid until Descartes finally defeated it.

In modern times science has become overly speculative starting with Einstein and even worse with Hawking. Where before it was religion that was tainting philosophy, now it is science that is tainting both of the other two.

I would not put too much faith in science, as you seem to do.
 
Riveroaks said:
Empiricism has come a long way indeed and has taken out of the realm of philosophical speculation much of what had been debated before.

But the rest of your statement is a very hasty generalization and as such it is unsupported and fails.

It sounds more like a convenient excuse to avoid studying the history of philosophy.

The earliest philosophers were simply speculating about science. They did not have the tools and instruments to probe any deeper.

Starting with Plato he and others tried to influence the world for the better, rather than pore over the thought process purely. Russell condemns him for it.

Aristotle his student became extremely rigid and did not encourage any Empiricism at all, so science stalled for nearly a millennium.

With Galileo and Copernicus that all began to change.

Skepticism was rabid until Descartes finally defeated it.

In modern times science has become overly speculative starting with Einstein and even worse with Hawking. Where before it was religion that was tainting philosophy, now it is science that is tainting both of the other two.

I would not put too much faith in science, as you seem to do.
Click to expand...

I often think of science as an other type of religion. It has just hitched onto a method that it more helpful in managing the world around us than forbidding the consumption of pork.
 
Riveroaks said:
I would not put too much faith in science, as you seem to do.
Click to expand...

Science does not require faith. Faith is for the uneducated and the ignorant.

Science can prove itself. It doesn't require any human to justify its validity.
 
joG said:
I often think of science as an other type of religion. It has just hitched onto a method that it more helpful in managing the world around us than forbidding the consumption of pork.
Click to expand...

Lately it has indeed become a religion, yes.

There is so much science fiction mixed up in it now that it is hard to sort out the true Empiricism from the modern mysticism in science.
 
Paralogic said:
Science does not require faith. Faith is for the uneducated and the ignorant.

Science can prove itself. It doesn't require any human to justify its validity.
Click to expand...

Your forgetting that science is all Empiricism and therefore it's logic is strictly inductive. Inductive logic is inferred not deduced.

You know the difference right ??
 
What good does it do to believe in something?

Anything that can be created can be torn down.

And nothing lasts forever.

And I hate having dyslexia to no end. You have no idea that it took me thirty whole freaking minutes to unscramble the initial mess that came out when i first typed that.


Dammit.
 
Paralogic said:
Humans are irrelevant to the universe. That much is easily proven.
Click to expand...
Humans are only recently created. We are 'new kids on the block' in the cosmological scene. Although we evolved from primordial life which is older, some parts of the human being are more remarkable than any other life that existed. The brain is the first one that should be obvious. Standing upright, opposable thumbs. Then there's the whole cultural aspect of humanity, all that it brings. Humans are hands-down the most superior life forms that ever existed.
 
Manny said:
Humans are hands-down the most superior life forms that ever existed.
Click to expand...

Maybe. But, still, irrelevant to the universe. Nothing humans can claim as their own is even at a miniscule scale important to universal existence.
 
Manny said:
That is what religion needs to do- impede progress.
Click to expand...
Because ignorance is so important for the continuation of religious influence.
 
The "Philosophy God" is a totally different concept than the "Religious God."

The philosophy God is that being who is deductively proved to exist by the 5 proofs of God by San Tomas Aquinas. The point being that with all the footprints of a God in the Heavens and also in the Earth, there must be a God somewhere. Whether one or many such Gods exist philosophy cannot answer.

The religious God is simply that Being about whom scrolls and books have been written recounting encounters between certain men called prophets and the God or Gods Himself/Herself/Themselves. From these the major world religions of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Zen, Shinto, Judaism, Zarathustranism, and others have arisen.

For some people science (which is really inductive Empiricism) is their religion and there is no god but science.

Pick your poison.

Bertrand Russell urges keeping science, philosophy, and religion completely separate -- for good reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom