• 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

Riveroaks

Banned
Joined
Jul 14, 2015
Messages
10,230
Reaction score
2,081
Location
Peoples' Republic Of CALIF
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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?
 
Last edited:
WCH said:
As him being a member of the Socialist Fabian society, where one of their goals was to de-Christianize the world, I'd say it worked on you.

http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Entity=RussellBAW
Click to expand...

I know Russell is atheist but I don't care.

I saw his other books where he discusses why.

I am not remotely interested in why.

Theism is great. Everyone should believe in something.

Organized religion is the thing you need to be wary of.

Therefore organized religion is the thing I am very wary of.

I am not de-Christianized. I am de-organized-religion-ized.

My message for all theists is the same --

- enjoy the comfort and strength that your faith brings you;

- attend meetings as you see fit;

- don't get overly fanatical about anything;

- contribute sufficiently to defray the costs of your participation;

- don't give until it hurts you even though that's what they may want out of you.
 
Last edited:
William Rea said:
Really? This is all you have to add? Welcome to the list.
Click to expand...

It's a fair statement on Russell, I think.

Anyone that wears their atheism on their sleeve deserves to have it called attention to.

Russell led a very charmed privileged life. I would not expect him to need or want religion of any kind for any reason.
 
For me, it was learning history and understanding the scientific method that kept me skeptical of religions. I tend to think that today, science, not philosophy, is usually the best approach to getting answers to many "philosophical" questions, especially with the developments in understanding how the brain functions and cosmology.
 
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...

What say you?

I would say that there is a huge difference between the philosophy that exists purely to gain understanding of self and that which is written for entertainment or popularity.

In my mind philosophy begins with a definition of terms, progressively introduced, sufficient to frame necessary matter, while simultaneously applying logic to reduce the equation, and thus eliminate the superfluous, to yield true-truths.

In my mind philosophy begins, for example, with a definition of truth.

Of course there is also the thing of personal philosophy; in reading Bertrand for example we might hope he offers some insight, some little morsels that serve to enlighten, and thus shape the way we ourselves socially interact with the world.

If you look at his comments outlined above all of them are actually critical of western philosophy. And I myself must concur. We are capable of much better, much better in the sense of gaining a more accurate understanding of self. And the world around us.

That said, philosophers are born; they cannot be created. Or to put that another way, the tend to develop as self creations.

Descartes: "I think therefore I am".... It's "third level logic"; the equation can be solved.
 
Last edited:
Riveroaks said:
It's a fair statement on Russell, I think.

Anyone that wears their atheism on their sleeve deserves to have it called attention to.

Russell led a very charmed privileged life. I would not expect him to need or want religion of any kind for any reason.
Click to expand...

My problem was with the hack comment regarding the Fabian Society.
 
William Rea said:
My problem was with the hack comment regarding the Fabian Society.
Click to expand...

Did you see all the other elitist, socialist organizations he was part of. Are you familiar with the eugenics, racist, human reduction philosophy of these groups??

In 1953, Bertrand Russell wrote:

"I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others... War...has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a 'Black Death' could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full." [10]


Oh yeah, you don't think that's a big deal.
 
WCH said:
Did you see all the other elitist, socialist organizations he was part of. Are you familiar with the eugenics, racist, human reduction philosophy of these groups??

In 1953, Bertrand Russell wrote:

"I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others... War...has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a 'Black Death' could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full." [10]


Oh yeah, you don't think that's a big deal.
Click to expand...

Russell was a C/O (conscientious objector) in the UK during WW1.

He felt that the war was useless and a waste of lives.

WW2 being twice as bloody as WW1 but a cause unavoidable by the UK, Russia, and USA, I suspect Russell did not complain much about WW2 then, other than the part WW1 played in it.

After WW1 and WW2 the populations of Europe had become quite depleted of men, and for many decades thereafter Turks were imported into Europe to do most of the work. My own grandfather on my mom's side had died in WW2 in Germany during the bombing.

I never read about anything Malthusian that Russell every had to say. I know Russell is adamantly anti-Christian but not sure why. Probably because he believes in "philosophy first" and religion last.

If you have any citations on that issue, please share.
 
Riveroaks said:
Russell was a C/O (conscientious objector) in the UK during WW1.

He felt that the war was useless and a waste of lives.

WW2 being twice as bloody as WW1 but a cause unavoidable by the UK, Russia, and USA, I suspect Russell did not complain much about WW2 then, other than the part WW1 played in it.

After WW1 and WW2 the populations of Europe had become quite depleted of men, and for many decades thereafter Turks were imported into Europe to do most of the work. My own grandfather on my mom's side had died in WW2 in Germany during the bombing.

I never read about anything Malthusian that Russell every had to say. I know Russell is adamantly anti-Christian but not sure why. Probably because he believes in "philosophy first" and religion last.

If you have any citations on that issue, please share.
Click to expand...

Apparently he saw religions as just another means for controlling the masses. Same as using the press, the theater and at that time, the radio. The same methods used by modern socialist/Progressives

The presence of Lord Bertrand Russell as one of five honorary chairmen of the CCF was emblematic of this mission at the CCF's inception. Russell, the author of the post-Roosevelt / pre-Eisenhower Truman Doctrine of "world government through terror of nuclear weapons," had written a 1951 book, The Impact of Science on Society, which spelled out his vision of the future. It was a far more precise, more revealing "mission statement" for the Congress for Cultural Freedom than anything that the CCF would ever publish in its own name:

"I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology.... Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called 'education.' Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the press, the cinema, and the radio play an increasing part.... It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment."

"The subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship.... The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray."

http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=Kulturkampf&E=RussellBAW

I'm far from being any sort of expert on Russell.but, I am aware of his circle of friends and associates and their objectives. They seemed to want to blend western capitalism with eastern Communism with nuclear supremacy for world domination through a one-world government [the UN] definitely no room for religion there.

Schiller Institute "How Bertrand Russell Became An Evil Man"- FIDELIO Article 1994.,LaRouche
 
WCH said:
Apparently he saw religions as just another means for controlling the masses. Same as using the press, the theater and at that time, the radio. The same methods used by modern socialist/Progressives

The presence of Lord Bertrand Russell as one of five honorary chairmen of the CCF was emblematic of this mission at the CCF's inception. Russell, the author of the post-Roosevelt / pre-Eisenhower Truman Doctrine of "world government through terror of nuclear weapons," had written a 1951 book, The Impact of Science on Society, which spelled out his vision of the future. It was a far more precise, more revealing "mission statement" for the Congress for Cultural Freedom than anything that the CCF would ever publish in its own name:

"I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology.... Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called 'education.' Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the press, the cinema, and the radio play an increasing part.... It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment."

"The subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship.... The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray."

http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=Kulturkampf&E=RussellBAW

I'm far from being any sort of expert on Russell.but, I am aware of his circle of friends and associates and their objectives. They seemed to want to blend western capitalism with eastern Communism with nuclear supremacy for world domination through a one-world government [the UN] definitely no room for religion there.

Schiller Institute "How Bertrand Russell Became An Evil Man"- FIDELIO Article 1994.,LaRouche
Click to expand...

Russell was really traumatized by the British propaganda of WW1 of which its primary object was to persuade young men to sign up for the war.

Russell opposed that and was even imprisoned in London for it.

Adam Hochschild of Cal Berkeley writes about in his book "To End All Wars."

That's probably why Russell is what he is -- environment.

Thanks for the summary.
 
RAMOSS said:
Please provide evidence that one of the goals of the Fabian society is to 'De-CHristianize' the world.
Click to expand...

There's a wealth of info in the link I provided. Scroll down to articles and follow Russell
 
RAMOSS said:
Please provide evidence that one of the goals of the Fabian society is to 'De-CHristianize' the world.
Click to expand...

Secularism is naturally opposed to Christianity, but other than that, there's only rumors. The original coat of arms for the Fabian Society was a wolf in sheep's clothing, an example in the Bible about what Christians are to watch against for the protection of the flock. But their usage of it was because they wanted to drag the sheep away from the capitalist norm, not because they wanted to kill religion (at least, that wasn't the goal of this society, but may have been by certain members of the society).
 
WCH said:
There's a wealth of info in the link I provided. Scroll down to articles and follow Russell
Click to expand...


THere is not one thing there about the 'Fabian society' wanting to 'deChristianize' the world. I mean, that site has articles by Lyndon LaRouche, I certainly don't consider that link to be... well, a reliable source of information due to that fact. It also provided links to conspiracy theories, anti-Semitic articles, 911 conspiracy theories, and other crazy stuff. Do you have a source that isn't totally insane , and also backs up your claim?
 
RAMOSS said:
THere is not one thing there about the 'Fabian society' wanting to 'deChristianize' the world. I mean, that site has articles by Lyndon LaRouche, I certainly don't consider that link to be... well, a reliable source of information due to that fact. It also provided links to conspiracy theories, anti-Semitic articles, 911 conspiracy theories, and other crazy stuff. Do you have a source that isn't totally insane , and also backs up your claim?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I looked for that as well. Nothing. nada, zip, zilch.
 
RAMOSS said:
THere is not one thing there about the 'Fabian society' wanting to 'deChristianize' the world. I mean, that site has articles by Lyndon LaRouche, I certainly don't consider that link to be... well, a reliable source of information due to that fact. It also provided links to conspiracy theories, anti-Semitic articles, 911 conspiracy theories, and other crazy stuff. Do you have a source that isn't totally insane , and also backs up your claim?
Click to expand...

The Fabian's desire for the creation of a one-world government is in direct contradiction to the Holy Bible where it is considered a sign of the end-times and the coming of the anti-Christ.

If you don't accept the word of the Bible, you're not going to accept these links. Calling them all 'crazy' shows little faith on your part.

http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Entity=FabianSoc

http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=BrotherDark&C=2.0&E=FabianSoc#Humanism
 
Last edited:
WCH said:
The Fabian's desire for the creation of a one-world government is in direct contradiction to the Holy Bible where it is considered a sign of the end-times and the coming of the anti-Christ.

If you don't accept the word of the Bible, you're not going to accept these links. Calling them all 'crazy' shows little faith on your part.

http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Entity=FabianSoc
Click to expand...

So why don't you cut.paste from that page that said that, not that this 'alternative culture' "news site" has any validity what so ever, but neither did it say what you claim it said.
 
zyzygy said:
Brotherhood of Darkness
Secret societies and the Luciferian conspiracy (condensed edition)
-- by: Stanley Monteith, 2000, source: Radio Liberty
Click to expand...

So..you can use Google. While you're at it, do an extensive research drop for the people who consider themselves Liberals, socialists, progressives, communists etc. It's all the same.
 
Riveroaks said:
I know Russell is adamantly anti-Christian but not sure why. Probably because he believes in "philosophy first" and religion last.

If you have any citations on that issue, please share.
Click to expand...

Russell wrote a book entitled "Why I am not a Christian", which I have in my collection. I used to buy books when I was a kid...
Here it is online: Why I Am Not A Christian, by Bertrand Russell

Russell is only a human being and so is capable of being utterly wrong, most of the time. For example he makes the argument that God cannot be a first cause, since all we need to do as ask "Who made God?" to blow this away. Of course, modern science has since then solved that problem, indicating that time as a dimension has a beginning, per the latest and greatest of cosmic models like M theory, in which this universe of 3 dimensions plus time was created when a higher order multi-dimensional object collapsed. Pope Hawking's answer to "What was there before the big bang" is, there was no before. (Witty article by Hawking)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom