This has so many views because people want to justify smoking against government anti-smoking laws, but these laws are based on increased knowledge of the harmful effects of smoking since Bertrand Russell's time. Had he known about the bad effects he would not have said what he did.
@SwordInAir I think it was less him saying outright that their isn't anything wrong with smoking, and more that he telling his own experience and how he, himself, has not really been affected. There are a few people who can smoke natural tobacco (not the grossly manufactured stuff with all the chemicals in it) and live to be in their 80s (my grandfather doesn't buy cigarettes, but smokes naturally grown tobacco). I'm not a fan of smoking, mind you, but to each their own, I suppose.
Russell had his hands on good tobacco. This proves that natural tobacco is not a tenth as dangerous as modern day cigarettes manufactured by corporations.
And corporations that happen to be universities love it when people charge those who assess philosophy and the non-stem programs as pointless, of being anti-intellectual or applying their own "subjective" values on those disciplines (a simple minded there is no "value" just "valuers" assumption). It makes them money with next to no investment. Free money will always generate supply, and create an army of useful idiots to defend the source.
Ah, Lord Russell. A man who could get lost in reverence staring at his own reflection in a butter knife. Philosophy is perhaps the most pointless thing a man can do with his life. But it's a lot of fun.
@Khuno2 interesting. I feel its sort of a dead end as well, but anything in this world born out of human creativity starts in concept or intellect so it can be a great spring board. Philosophers seem to be men lost "down the scenic route" so far that they can't get back on to the highway. LOL Nietzsche owns this geezer in my mind...
@Khuno2 I disagree. From what I've gathered, his theory of descriptions is an attempt to expand the inarguable limitations of language. Lets face it, language is the crudest "mask" of all illusion. Correct me if I'm wrong.
His theory of descriptions was an answer to the problem of non-being, and had far ranging applications to a host of philosophical issues. It was quite ingenius, actually. So it wasn't inarguable (ha). Nietzsche was a great social critic, and, at times, had profound ethical insight (he was a virtue ethicist, I gather)...not such a hot philosopher. One big problem would be saying that there is no such thing as truth (is that true?).
The problem of non-being refers to non-referring descriptions. Plato didn't have a beard, so to say that "Plato's beard didn't exist," would be to refer to nothing. But it's not nothing that's meant by the expression; therefore, nonbeing must exist to say what it's not. But that's hopelessly paradoxical (nothing isn't something), and we'd have to permit all sorts of things that don't exist into our ontology (Meinongianism). So descriptions clear that up.
@Khuno2 Going crazy over semantics breeds more fog than clarity. Attempting to use language to deconstruct language is futile.
Ironically I'll quote Nietzsche : "Being Profound / Seeming Profound : Those who know they are profound strive for clarity. Those who would like to seem profound strive for obscurity. For the crowd believes that if it cannot see to the bottom of something it must be profound. It is so timid and dislikes going into the water.
So if you define truth as "flux" (heraclitean), then truth is subject to change. Wouldn't change be the unchanging truth, or does that change, too? Change doesn't make change; for that we need a cashier. How do logical truths change?
@Khuno2 "wouldn't change be the unchanging truth" Sorry, thats just trying to twist my terms around onto themselves. Ill say it another way, The underlying basis and motive for all life is motion. Lets just do away with the word truth. Now, this scares the crap out of intellectuals and europeans so they try and tie the world down onto fixed poles of logic. Logical truths cannot change, thats why they are false. So, as before, lets do away with true/false (Beyond Good and Evil) and embrace motion
@Khuno2 i how you can conclude that other than just arbitrarily. doesn't it depend on what one values in life as well as over all value not always being present at the immediate moment? for example, plato's was a pointless life?
Plato's life was completely pointless, just not to him (I'm sure he was very self- important, like many philosophers). I like Plato's works, but one can lead an informed, successful, and intellectually stimulating life without ever having heard of him or having read his works (ditto for Russell). Philosophy serves no purpose, but it's fun; like, say, skydiving.
@Khuno2 i honestly don't mean this as any kind of insult, please believe that. but to me you just typed words that add up to nothing. all i see is a repeat of what i replied to.
all you are doing is arbitrarily deciding philosophy has no point. it is simply your own personal value system that leads you to believe that and nothing more.
@Khuno2 But if it wasn't for the intellect we wouldn't have chairs, guns, or readily available food. I guess philosophy is intellect divorced from action, which is really weird - kind of a hallmark of apathy and humility more than anything else. I guess thats why I gravitate towards Nietzsche, because he synthesizes cold science, primordial aggression, and literature into something close to philosophy but it somehow surpasses that title.
Philosophy occurs post mortem, which is why it's so useless. It's like Aristotle's command that a man (marvelously politically incorrect!) shouldn't even think about ethics until he's in his mid to late forties... But it's far too late then, for you're either a louse or a saint, or more likely, something disappointing in between.
The sound quality is bad ,the man is really old,and he's speaking with a British accent .i can barely understand a word. If you can add some English subtitles on the video, I'd be very grateful .
I quit smoking seven years ago. Smoking can be said to have saved my life too. In Durban in 1992, I was smoking as I was leaving the campus of Technicon Natal during a storm. Somebody stopped me to ask for a cigarette. I complied, and lit their cigarette for them, then hustled out toward the large avocado tree that loomed over the pedestrian crossing I needed to take. Lightning struck the tree less than thirty feet ahead of me, electrocuting a boy my age, and burning a hole through him.
It does, but to a completely different part of the body and, of course, depending a lot on how much you drink (in that sense, just like tobacco). The thing is, alcohol only hurts you (yeah, I know there are accidents because of it, but you know what I mean). Tobacco affects to everyone around you when you smoke.
@ElGuerrerodeHielo Where is your scientific proof from a reputable source on the comment of "second hand" smoking harming human health?, and Alcohol itself may not affect others, however the effect on the human mind, or the whole psyche behind it, very much affects others, sometimes with deadly consequences.
Second hand smoking has only ever been disproven, however many corrupt individuals have tried to twist reports to support their own crusade, therefore evidence is nice.
That tobacco smoke affect to people in addition to the smoker is a more than proved fact, and if you deny it it's only because you refuse to see it. There are statistic showing how lung cancers are more common among non-smokers in houses where other people smoke, and obviously the harmful components of tobacco, when expelled to the air and breathed by other people damages them.
I would like to see these statistics please, that you reverse so...
I've known people who have smoked throughout their lives to 80+, and neither them nor their fellow inhabitants have suffered in anyway. Though I don't deny that Smoking has been proven harmful, because that would be silly, however the product that is exhaled is not inherently so, take a look at ?v=kGApkbcaZK4.
Using personal examples, in science, is irrelevant. About the video you link me, yeah, you are right, I should totally believe on everything that show tells me and disregard every scientifical study which proves that it's wrong! Even when tobacco affecting the fetus in pregant women is...
@ElGuerrerodeHielo You strawman me saying that I'm gullible for directing you to that video, when you're the one accepting everything the media says about second hand smoking without any reports? I'm still waiting on your proof.
I never disputed the damage of smoking on the human body, I disputed the fact that the produced smoke doesn't inherently cause any significant risk, and the reports correlate with that. Also again being foolish, assuming I smoke(which I do not)... :)
I sent you an article with the statistic. I can't post it here, so I did it in your profile. I don't want to waste more time on this. If you want to believe that there is a super-complot about secondhand smoking and ignore the opinion (and consensus) of the scienficial community, it's your choice,
Again there's no point trying to strawman me because it's futile. I'm not some "conspiracy nutcase", I simply challenge the authenticity of these wild claims that are based on little-to-no evidence as far as I've ever seen, and no-one has ever managed to provide this proof to me. Scientists used to be in consensus that the world was flat, inspired by the common view, look how wrong they was, so that point is moot. :)
@DeclanEWilliams Scientists ASSUMED that the world was flat, but there were not studies or proof of that. There are of second-hand tobacco being harmful. Just write in Google "Second hand tobacco effects" and you will find OVER 90000 articles.
I'll try to find that link again and pass it to you. Somehow...
Hate to say this to you but it's a MYTH ancient scientists believed the world was flat. A Greek named Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth 2200 years ago. Ancient scholars knew for a long time that Earth is either a sphere, egg-shaped or a dome. Sea farers discovered how the position of the stars changed depending on where they were and also saw how ship's sails could be seen in the distance but not the ship.
@McLarenMercedes It was the catholic theologians who brought back to idea later. Despite the fact that anyone with a little bit of knowledge of geometry would know that if that was the case, the horizon wouldn't exist.
@DeclanEWilliams ... absurdly obvious. since whatever the mother takes reachs the fetus.
Look, if you want to believe that smoke from tobacco is not harmful to not feel guilty or whatever, fine, you choice. But it's false, and you choose to believe otherwise because it is more convenient for you, that's all.
"I've known people who have smoked throughout their lives to 80+, and neither them nor their fellow inhabitants have suffered in anyway."
Smoking doesn't guarantee lung cancer in much the same way as drinking doesn't guarantee throat and mouth cancer. No one is saying this. It significantly raises the probability that you will develop these adverse health conditions however.
@DeclanEWilliams You say that studies that show that secondhand smoking is a reality (and there is actually scientific consensus about it) are from corrupt individuals. Well, here a crazy idea: the ones who deny it are related to the tobacco companies.
By the way, as a person who suffers asthma, I can assure you that second hand smoking damages my health, being the most obvious way making it difficult to me to breathe.
LOL of course this was not in full context and 50+ years ago before full knowledge. You just need to sit in the back of the plane or not get on in the first place. I quit years ago and not about to start again.
I really appreciate Russell's sense of humour on the one hand. On the other hand this story clearly shows how drugs effect even great minds. It is always better to stay away from any kind of drugs to keep one's mind as lucid as possible. Tobacco is just a nasty drug that works through self-deception: it makes you believe that it is good for you, against any scientific evidence that states the opposite. It may have saved a few due to some happy coincidences, but for sure it killed millions.
@antoniobonifati Tobacco does not deceive you into believing anything. It simply triggers the pleasure centers in the brain and makes you feel good. This is exactly what happens when we have sex, eat calorie rich foods and various other activities.
@ryan84160, one cannot ignore the scientific evidence that nicotine is a drug that gives you a strong addiction. You can't compare smoking to other natural needs and activities like eating, doing sports or breeding. Smoking is non-natural. There aren't any animals smoking. And what about the demonstrated relationship between smoking and cancer? Surely smoking gives smokers a temporary pleasure, but that does not imply that it is good for one's health. The long term effect is to kill you before.
@antoniobonifati "You can't compare smoking to other natural needs and activities like eating, doing sports or breeding. Smoking is non-natural. : It depends on how you define natural. However, even if wee say it is not natural, that says absolutely nothing about its value or weather it causes some type of delusion.I could just as easily say that my eye glasses are not natural. To say something is good or bad simply because it is or is not natural is to commit the naturalistic fallacy.
@antoniobonifati "And what about the demonstrated relationship between smoking and cancer? Surely smoking gives smokers a temporary pleasure, but that does not imply that it is good for one's health. " I did not say it was healthy, I simply said that it did not cause the smoker to believe anything that was not true.
@ryan84160 It's a very simple logic. If you accept that smoking harms you, then if you care about your health you should stop smoking in order to be logic and not fall into contradiction. If you don't care, you can either quit or continue smoking. Before you may not know scientifically that smoking was bad for you and you had the option of ignorance. But today to continue smoking one should be either a masochist logician or an illogical person like most of us.
@antoniobonifati I agree with you for the most part. Smoking is not healthy, there is no debating that. This is different from smoking makes you believe things that are not true. IF and only IF you care about the health of your lungs more than you care about the pleasure gained from smoking would it be irrational. However it is not a logical requirement than one value the health of their lungs over the pleasure they get form smoking.
@ryan84160 Your argument assumes that smoking only affects your lungs and not your overall health, which is not true according to medical literature. But let's suppose it is true. Could you live without lungs? Technology does not still allow that. Therefore if you care about keeping alive as long as possible, you should care about your lungs and thus shouldn't smoke. If you prefer pleasure over prolonged life, it is perfectly rational to continue smoking, of course. Your life, your choice.
@antoniobonifati "Your argument assumes that smoking only affects your lungs and not your overall health" No, I understand that smoking affects many aspects of health, I was just using the lungs as an argument.
@ryan84160 Your argument is logical, but you ignore the main fact about smoking so to not conclude that smoking is illogical. You can always select the antecedents as you wish, but I do not think such important things like "I care for my health" and "Smoking affects my health" can generally be ignored to make a good argument. If you just accept those two antecedents, it is a very simple deduction that you must not smoke. If you smoke, I hope to make you quit and live healthier and longer .
@antoniobonifati " If you just accept those two antecedents, it is a very simple deduction that you must not smoke." No, not necessarily. We value thing is hierarchical order.It is possible to care about your health, but care about the pleasure of smoking more. If you want to convince people to quit smoking, your job should be to give them reasons as to why they should value a longer life over smoking.
@antoniobonifati Correct me if I am wrong, but I assume you eat a least a somewhat normal diet. The fact that you do this shows that you value the pleasure of eating a normal amount of calories and having a somewhat satisfied feeling in you stomach more than you value living as long as possible.
@antoniobonifati It sounds like you reeaally want to have a puff from a good Cuban Cigar.
Maybe you don' t know it, but it' s like that. Hatred involves love, i guess
Can I give you a gift? Watch Bill Hicks on smocking and on Drugs, it' s a great great stand up comic and man. And I say you this: have you got a cell-phone? a wi-fi area near you? Do you eat normal food? Do you live in a city? Our life is all poisoned, please do not ruin my pleasure, focus on non-pleasure things first. Thanks
@ulissegarnerone No, thanks. My pleasure is to be healthy and fit to run. BTW being able to run fast once saved my life. I was chased by a ferocious mastiff escaped from an enclosure because the electrician left the gate opened. Dogs are much faster than us, but that was a short one and I saw him running after me before. If I smoked, ~40% of my lungs would be gone. I don't need any drugs, there is enough pollution, slavery and deception in this world and prefer my mind to remain free and sound.
@ulissegarnerone Cell phones do nothing to out health and same can be said about wi-fi areas: the frequency of the electromagnetic radiation it too low to be harmful.
Now, you say it's your pleasure and that's cool, I don't want to get into your life. However, it's not only your health what you are damagind, but the others as well.
@ElGuerrerodeHielo Unless you're in a closed, unventilated space, second hand smoke is negligible. Lets not forget why smoking indoors in public was banned, and public smoking outdoors has not been.
Funny though, it's on the edge now. Problem is, the best argument opponents can come up with is "I shouldn't have to smell it" (grow up) or the ever unsupported "It will kill all our children from a mile away!!!" (go fuck yourself). But sensationalism always wins, doesn't it?
@VitriolicAC Being honest, I don't really see any problem in people smoking, as long as they don't damage other people's health. I'm an asmatic, and I feel much better than when I enter bars, because of the lack of smoke... but I'm not against the existence of smokers clubs or things like that. I can't still see why a person would start smoking, nowadays, with all the existing information about its consequences, but anyway... it's not really of my business.
@ElGuerrerodeHielo I can tell you why I started smoking. I was 14, it was another thing to try, and my step dad had made them easily available in the kitchen cupboard. "I won't get addicted". Oh god, haha.
@VitriolicAC Heh, that was normal some years ago, I'm afraid. And I can understand how people like you started. What is harder for me to understand is how, nowadays, with all the available information, a boy or a girl would decide to start.
@antoniobonifati "Therefore if you care about keeping alive as long as possible, you should care about your lungs and thus shouldn't smoke." There is a tremendous amount of evidence that nearly starving yourself on an extremely calorie restricted diet can dramatically increase your lifespan. Anyone that knows this and continues to eat a normal diet must value the pleasure they get from eating a normal diet more than they do about living as long as possible.
@antoniobonifati Living as long as possible for the sake of living as long as possible does not seem to make much sense to me and I doubt it makes much sense to anyone else.
"If you prefer pleasure over prolonged life, it is perfectly rational to continue smoking, of course. Your life, your choice." I actually don't smoke because I value my health and I dislike the taste/smell of smoke, but you are exactly right here, it would be rational under those circumstances.
@antoniobonifati People do all kinds of things that are dangerous or hazardous to their health such as motor cycle riding, skateboarding, eating calorie rich foods, having unprotected sex. If they care about their health more than the joy they get from these activities, it would be irrational to engage in them. On the other hand, if the value was reversed, then it would become rational.
@mittROMNEY666 Yes, that is certainly the case with many people, but it is not necessarily the case. And even you do have an irrational belief that you are special and will beat the odds, smoking does not cause you to believe this as was suggested.
"...I owe my life to smoking"! lol yeah baybay so does Snoop Dogg! FC%K Joe Camel, the idea of BR on a billboard puffin' away totally makes me want to smoke more!
Wasn't it the case that asbestos dust, non degradable, was not strewn all over the roads in the car era, until the brakes got changed over to metallic. That asbestos is still around ,but wasn't in his day. The irritation of aveoli in the lungs may be the nascent cancer cells .
Cannot believe there is an argument here about the 'causal link between him smoking and surviving'. Well, yeah, there is one. Get over it you bunch of children.
Hey, commenters, if you could get one interview with any philosopher from any period of time, who would it be? It's such a hard pick. Hume! I choose you!
Bertrand Russell smoked tabaco all the time for almost 80 years but he died when he was 97 from a freakin' influenza, hahahaha. If I smoke, I'll get cancer in 2 years...
Smoking didn't save his life, the mere possibility that the plane didn't crash on land or so that the smoking section of the plane didn't drown rather than the non-smoking section owed to the possible outcome in his favour. There is clearly no causal relationship between his smoking and the course of the plane due either to the fault of the pilots or the mechanics.
@grimslider75 actually there is. If Bertrand Russell had not been a smoker, he would have sat in the non smoking section and died. Because he insisted, due to his addiction, on sitting in the smoking section he lived. I`m sorry that that doesn`t jive with your negative views of tobacco.
@grimslider75 he wasn't saved for smoking or being a smoker, but by the fact that only the people on the other part of the plane died. it's a story without a moral and he surely knew that, get over it.
@38dragoon38 no form of smoking is healthy, but pipes and cigars seem to be far less risky in moderation than cigarettes, it seems when it all comes down to it with the pipe and cigar the only real risk or major consequence of smoking it is oral cancer. Now if you're inhaling pipe/cigars and/or combining them with cigarettes and your unhealthy otherwise (very overweight etc) then they can be just as bad as cigarette or even worse! But smoking a pipe 1-3 a day is nothing really to worry about.
@tpstrat14 Hell yeah man! He smoked a pipe, criticized society, lived life to it's maximum and didn't afraid of anything! I consider Russell to be a renaissance man!
@LIGHTRONIX ok so he feels as if he were not a smoker he may of not of been or existed in the same way he had, therefore not becoming the man he is now, so "owing his life to smoking" isn't a literal, it's more like, "dude, I would soooo totally not of done that chick if I knew it was ur sister." argument! dig it?
@starofcctv94 Life was a lot less precious in those days lad, bet a good 30% of babies didn't even make it far out their mum's fanny holes to begin with.
I would like to reiterate that the original comment I posted was not directed at Russell or the person posting the video, but rather to RESPECTFULLY address some of the previous comments by other YouTubers....I hope that clarifies my position and alleviates any further confusion. Thank you.
What is overlooked here is the fact that the tobacco he smoked in his pipe was not the modern day cigarette tobacco which is filled with over 500 carcinogenic chemicals like formeldahyde,etc. Also, the dynamics of smoking a pipe does not employ inhaling the smoke deep into the lungs like it is with smoking cigarettes. And, sitting at the back of a plane during a crash would certainly help the odds of survival, regardless of the smoking factor. Pretty weak argument for pro smoking, imo.
@93tomb Actually, this comment is not directed specifically to you - I just wanted to post this in the 'thread' connected to my original comment.........
I would like to reiterate that the original comment I posted was not directed at Russell or the person posting the video, but rather to RESPECTFULLY address some of the previous comments by other YouTubers....I hope that clarifies my position and alleviates any further confusion. Thank you.
@Karmakat59 lol what an idiot. The interviewer clearly established it as a "vice" before asking Russell.....Russell was merely speaking about his indulgence of this certain vice, he was obviously not trying to fucking encourage people to go smoke. Most people don't really give a fuck about where they sit on a plane, Russell only sat at the back because of smoking thus that specific action saved his life. People like this should really refrain from watching intellectuals speak.
I know smoking is supposed to be evil and wrong and all that but I love this video so much.
jhohcable 8 hours ago
and he almost lived to be 100 haha
CamerOneiric 2 days ago
This has so many views because people want to justify smoking against government anti-smoking laws, but these laws are based on increased knowledge of the harmful effects of smoking since Bertrand Russell's time. Had he known about the bad effects he would not have said what he did.
SwordInAir 2 days ago
@SwordInAir I think it was less him saying outright that their isn't anything wrong with smoking, and more that he telling his own experience and how he, himself, has not really been affected. There are a few people who can smoke natural tobacco (not the grossly manufactured stuff with all the chemicals in it) and live to be in their 80s (my grandfather doesn't buy cigarettes, but smokes naturally grown tobacco). I'm not a fan of smoking, mind you, but to each their own, I suppose.
icarus212001 6 hours ago
Russell was a damn Hobbit!
hanola7 2 days ago
smoking is for idiots
father042 3 days ago
not sure if serious
Velkar182 3 days ago
Russell had his hands on good tobacco. This proves that natural tobacco is not a tenth as dangerous as modern day cigarettes manufactured by corporations.
Slash417 5 days ago 9
And corporations that happen to be universities love it when people charge those who assess philosophy and the non-stem programs as pointless, of being anti-intellectual or applying their own "subjective" values on those disciplines (a simple minded there is no "value" just "valuers" assumption). It makes them money with next to no investment. Free money will always generate supply, and create an army of useful idiots to defend the source.
Khuno2 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some people want young white females to mix with non-white males.
I made a one-minute video highlighting a very small sample of race-mixing advertisements.
I love white people, and I am opposed to race-mixing. But I do not hate non-whites.
If you click on my name “awhitesoul2012” highlighted in blue below this comment, you can watch my video.
Thanks.
awhitesoul2012 1 week ago
@aaron stately
Out of millions of sperm, sad too know you won the race.
MikeDaWulfe 1 week ago
He never inhaled.
aaronstately 1 week ago 2
Ah, Lord Russell. A man who could get lost in reverence staring at his own reflection in a butter knife. Philosophy is perhaps the most pointless thing a man can do with his life. But it's a lot of fun.
Khuno2 1 week ago
@Khuno2 interesting. I feel its sort of a dead end as well, but anything in this world born out of human creativity starts in concept or intellect so it can be a great spring board. Philosophers seem to be men lost "down the scenic route" so far that they can't get back on to the highway. LOL Nietzsche owns this geezer in my mind...
maxabeles 1 week ago
@maxabeles
I dunno. Russell's theory of descriptions seems to stack up against Nietzsche's philosophical achievements pretty well.
Khuno2 6 days ago
@Khuno2 I disagree. From what I've gathered, his theory of descriptions is an attempt to expand the inarguable limitations of language. Lets face it, language is the crudest "mask" of all illusion. Correct me if I'm wrong.
maxabeles 6 days ago
@maxabeles
His theory of descriptions was an answer to the problem of non-being, and had far ranging applications to a host of philosophical issues. It was quite ingenius, actually. So it wasn't inarguable (ha). Nietzsche was a great social critic, and, at times, had profound ethical insight (he was a virtue ethicist, I gather)...not such a hot philosopher. One big problem would be saying that there is no such thing as truth (is that true?).
Khuno2 6 days ago
@Khuno2 OK. What is non-being, I honestly am curious, and it something I should probably know?
Secondly, I define truth as motion, flux. I thought for a while truth was nihilism, but thats suicidal lol. Oscillating Absolutism.
maxabeles 6 days ago
@maxabeles
The problem of non-being refers to non-referring descriptions. Plato didn't have a beard, so to say that "Plato's beard didn't exist," would be to refer to nothing. But it's not nothing that's meant by the expression; therefore, nonbeing must exist to say what it's not. But that's hopelessly paradoxical (nothing isn't something), and we'd have to permit all sorts of things that don't exist into our ontology (Meinongianism). So descriptions clear that up.
Khuno2 6 days ago
Comment removed
maxabeles 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Khuno2 Going crazy over semantics breeds more fog than clarity. Attempting to use language to deconstruct language is futile.
Ironically I'll quote Nietzsche : "Being Profound / Seeming Profound : Those who know they are profound strive for clarity. Those who would like to seem profound strive for obscurity. For the crowd believes that if it cannot see to the bottom of something it must be profound. It is so timid and dislikes going into the water.
maxabeles 6 days ago
@maxabeles
So if you define truth as "flux" (heraclitean), then truth is subject to change. Wouldn't change be the unchanging truth, or does that change, too? Change doesn't make change; for that we need a cashier. How do logical truths change?
Khuno2 6 days ago
@Khuno2 "wouldn't change be the unchanging truth" Sorry, thats just trying to twist my terms around onto themselves. Ill say it another way, The underlying basis and motive for all life is motion. Lets just do away with the word truth. Now, this scares the crap out of intellectuals and europeans so they try and tie the world down onto fixed poles of logic. Logical truths cannot change, thats why they are false. So, as before, lets do away with true/false (Beyond Good and Evil) and embrace motion
maxabeles 6 days ago
@maxabeles Btw thanks for bringing up Heraclitus i didn't know about this thug.
maxabeles 6 days ago
@Khuno2 i how you can conclude that other than just arbitrarily. doesn't it depend on what one values in life as well as over all value not always being present at the immediate moment? for example, plato's was a pointless life?
MisterBouncyBounce 6 days ago
@MisterBouncyBounce
Plato's life was completely pointless, just not to him (I'm sure he was very self- important, like many philosophers). I like Plato's works, but one can lead an informed, successful, and intellectually stimulating life without ever having heard of him or having read his works (ditto for Russell). Philosophy serves no purpose, but it's fun; like, say, skydiving.
Khuno2 6 days ago
@Khuno2 i honestly don't mean this as any kind of insult, please believe that. but to me you just typed words that add up to nothing. all i see is a repeat of what i replied to.
all you are doing is arbitrarily deciding philosophy has no point. it is simply your own personal value system that leads you to believe that and nothing more.
MisterBouncyBounce 6 days ago
@MisterBouncyBounce
Sure sure, kiddo. You run with that.
Khuno2 6 days ago
@Khuno2 But if it wasn't for the intellect we wouldn't have chairs, guns, or readily available food. I guess philosophy is intellect divorced from action, which is really weird - kind of a hallmark of apathy and humility more than anything else. I guess thats why I gravitate towards Nietzsche, because he synthesizes cold science, primordial aggression, and literature into something close to philosophy but it somehow surpasses that title.
maxabeles 6 days ago
@maxabeles
Philosophy occurs post mortem, which is why it's so useless. It's like Aristotle's command that a man (marvelously politically incorrect!) shouldn't even think about ethics until he's in his mid to late forties... But it's far too late then, for you're either a louse or a saint, or more likely, something disappointing in between.
Khuno2 6 days ago
@Khuno2 so you did take it as an insult huh. ok whatever.
MisterBouncyBounce 6 days ago
He died in 1970...at the age of 98!
andyrooney12 1 week ago
since he started smoking, his life was lenghted by 70 years.
fritspas 2 weeks ago 2
@sveinbjornt
The sound quality is bad ,the man is really old,and he's speaking with a British accent .i can barely understand a word. If you can add some English subtitles on the video, I'd be very grateful .
my1990ful 2 weeks ago
To me, someone who can't give up an addiction has not reached true understanding.
AirSandFire 2 weeks ago
@AirSandFire Doesn't it depend on the nature of the addiction?...How about if you are addicted to breathing?...lol
Jangalene1 1 week ago
a funny alibi from a guy of great intelligence
lilmaqi 2 weeks ago
I quit smoking seven years ago. Smoking can be said to have saved my life too. In Durban in 1992, I was smoking as I was leaving the campus of Technicon Natal during a storm. Somebody stopped me to ask for a cigarette. I complied, and lit their cigarette for them, then hustled out toward the large avocado tree that loomed over the pedestrian crossing I needed to take. Lightning struck the tree less than thirty feet ahead of me, electrocuting a boy my age, and burning a hole through him.
talhoyle 3 weeks ago
Hard to believe he was only 23 when he did this interview
GenericUsername271 3 weeks ago
In the words of Bill Hicks: "Non-smokers die every day."
gibsonman4 4 weeks ago 17
@gibsonman4 How true!
writersblock26 3 weeks ago
It does, but to a completely different part of the body and, of course, depending a lot on how much you drink (in that sense, just like tobacco). The thing is, alcohol only hurts you (yeah, I know there are accidents because of it, but you know what I mean). Tobacco affects to everyone around you when you smoke.
ElGuerrerodeHielo 4 weeks ago
@ElGuerrerodeHielo Where is your scientific proof from a reputable source on the comment of "second hand" smoking harming human health?, and Alcohol itself may not affect others, however the effect on the human mind, or the whole psyche behind it, very much affects others, sometimes with deadly consequences.
Second hand smoking has only ever been disproven, however many corrupt individuals have tried to twist reports to support their own crusade, therefore evidence is nice.
DeclanEWilliams 3 weeks ago
@DeclanEWilliams I said that alcohol can lead to accidents.
That tobacco smoke affect to people in addition to the smoker is a more than proved fact, and if you deny it it's only because you refuse to see it. There are statistic showing how lung cancers are more common among non-smokers in houses where other people smoke, and obviously the harmful components of tobacco, when expelled to the air and breathed by other people damages them.
ElGuerrerodeHielo 3 weeks ago
@ElGuerrerodeHielo Just accidents? where on earth are you living.
I would like to see these statistics please, that you reverse so...
I've known people who have smoked throughout their lives to 80+, and neither them nor their fellow inhabitants have suffered in anyway. Though I don't deny that Smoking has been proven harmful, because that would be silly, however the product that is exhaled is not inherently so, take a look at ?v=kGApkbcaZK4.
DeclanEWilliams 3 weeks ago
@DeclanEWilliams @DeclanEWilliams Accidents, violence, more stuff. True.
I would like to see your studies, indeed.
Using personal examples, in science, is irrelevant. About the video you link me, yeah, you are right, I should totally believe on everything that show tells me and disregard every scientifical study which proves that it's wrong! Even when tobacco affecting the fetus in pregant women is...
ElGuerrerodeHielo 3 weeks ago
@ElGuerrerodeHielo You strawman me saying that I'm gullible for directing you to that video, when you're the one accepting everything the media says about second hand smoking without any reports? I'm still waiting on your proof.
I never disputed the damage of smoking on the human body, I disputed the fact that the produced smoke doesn't inherently cause any significant risk, and the reports correlate with that. Also again being foolish, assuming I smoke(which I do not)... :)
DeclanEWilliams 3 weeks ago
@DeclanEWilliams Sorry for the asumption, then.
I sent you an article with the statistic. I can't post it here, so I did it in your profile. I don't want to waste more time on this. If you want to believe that there is a super-complot about secondhand smoking and ignore the opinion (and consensus) of the scienficial community, it's your choice,
ElGuerrerodeHielo 3 weeks ago
@ElGuerrerodeHielo Still waiting on that document.
Again there's no point trying to strawman me because it's futile. I'm not some "conspiracy nutcase", I simply challenge the authenticity of these wild claims that are based on little-to-no evidence as far as I've ever seen, and no-one has ever managed to provide this proof to me. Scientists used to be in consensus that the world was flat, inspired by the common view, look how wrong they was, so that point is moot. :)
DeclanEWilliams 3 weeks ago
@DeclanEWilliams Scientists ASSUMED that the world was flat, but there were not studies or proof of that. There are of second-hand tobacco being harmful. Just write in Google "Second hand tobacco effects" and you will find OVER 90000 articles.
I'll try to find that link again and pass it to you. Somehow...
ElGuerrerodeHielo 3 weeks ago
@ElGuerrerodeHielo
Hate to say this to you but it's a MYTH ancient scientists believed the world was flat. A Greek named Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth 2200 years ago. Ancient scholars knew for a long time that Earth is either a sphere, egg-shaped or a dome. Sea farers discovered how the position of the stars changed depending on where they were and also saw how ship's sails could be seen in the distance but not the ship.
McLarenMercedes 2 weeks ago
@McLarenMercedes It was the catholic theologians who brought back to idea later. Despite the fact that anyone with a little bit of knowledge of geometry would know that if that was the case, the horizon wouldn't exist.
merdufer 2 weeks ago
@McLarenMercedes Yeah, I know. But during early Medieval, people thought so, at least.
ElGuerrerodeHielo 2 weeks ago
@DeclanEWilliams "Scientists used to be in consensus that the world was flat, inspired by the common view, look how wrong they was"
and who discovered they were wrong?
MisterBouncyBounce 6 days ago
@DeclanEWilliams ... absurdly obvious. since whatever the mother takes reachs the fetus.
Look, if you want to believe that smoke from tobacco is not harmful to not feel guilty or whatever, fine, you choice. But it's false, and you choose to believe otherwise because it is more convenient for you, that's all.
ElGuerrerodeHielo 3 weeks ago
@DeclanEWilliams
"I've known people who have smoked throughout their lives to 80+, and neither them nor their fellow inhabitants have suffered in anyway."
Smoking doesn't guarantee lung cancer in much the same way as drinking doesn't guarantee throat and mouth cancer. No one is saying this. It significantly raises the probability that you will develop these adverse health conditions however.
taz81848 2 weeks ago
@DeclanEWilliams You say that studies that show that secondhand smoking is a reality (and there is actually scientific consensus about it) are from corrupt individuals. Well, here a crazy idea: the ones who deny it are related to the tobacco companies.
By the way, as a person who suffers asthma, I can assure you that second hand smoking damages my health, being the most obvious way making it difficult to me to breathe.
ElGuerrerodeHielo 3 weeks ago
Hilarious listening to how smoking saved his life. Priceless.
KrackowKid 1 month ago
I love Bertrand Russell. He's such an interesting fellow.
Netlocd 1 month ago
pic or didn't happen bertrand homie
Song4Alex 1 month ago
eat, run, stay fit and die anyway...
pedalla 1 month ago
The numbers don't lie. You found one of many exceptions. People who don't smoke die also.
TheActiveAssault 1 month ago
If you don't smoke you'll never die. I do not know why anyone would choose to do it. It makes as much sense as jumping out of an airplane for fun.
ped200014 1 month ago
@ped200014 what?
kataevans 1 month ago
@ped200014 It's called nicotine addiction for a reason.
Hint: It's an addiction to nicotine.
VitriolicAC 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"If you have to smoke, smoke Menthols." -Albert D. Xavier 1982
MrBeautifulba1 1 month ago
He comes from an age where they only smoked tobacco leaves ! Now cigs have
99 rat poisons in them to make you sick soon ! TPTB are killing you not the plant !
smartazuis 1 month ago
What if his name was Bertband Mussel?
terraflux16 1 month ago 2
I want to attach a tube to the end of his pipe and the other to my asshole and fart into it. lol. old trollop.
terraflux16 1 month ago
hahaha this is what you call getting trolled by a man born in the 1800's
CommonSense90 1 month ago 64
fire it up, get out the bong!
rainmon 1 month ago
put THAT in your pipe and smoke it FAA!!!
WKRPinCINN 1 month ago
He owes his life to 'CHANCE' not smoking!! And another's decision on where to put the smoking section!
PaulJunkoKris 1 month ago
LOL of course this was not in full context and 50+ years ago before full knowledge. You just need to sit in the back of the plane or not get on in the first place. I quit years ago and not about to start again.
jonny7748 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JohoFTW me to man i stopped 10 tens ago, i was thinking about smoking a pipe
greywolfdog1 1 month ago
I really appreciate Russell's sense of humour on the one hand. On the other hand this story clearly shows how drugs effect even great minds. It is always better to stay away from any kind of drugs to keep one's mind as lucid as possible. Tobacco is just a nasty drug that works through self-deception: it makes you believe that it is good for you, against any scientific evidence that states the opposite. It may have saved a few due to some happy coincidences, but for sure it killed millions.
antoniobonifati 1 month ago
@antoniobonifati He won a Nobel Prize, I'll let him smoke his pipe.
khoops66 1 month ago 35
Comment removed
DanielBowden1975 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@khoops66 I bet he would have not been adverse to the odd joint
DanielBowden1975 1 month ago
@antoniobonifati Tobacco does not deceive you into believing anything. It simply triggers the pleasure centers in the brain and makes you feel good. This is exactly what happens when we have sex, eat calorie rich foods and various other activities.
ryan84160 1 month ago
@ryan84160, one cannot ignore the scientific evidence that nicotine is a drug that gives you a strong addiction. You can't compare smoking to other natural needs and activities like eating, doing sports or breeding. Smoking is non-natural. There aren't any animals smoking. And what about the demonstrated relationship between smoking and cancer? Surely smoking gives smokers a temporary pleasure, but that does not imply that it is good for one's health. The long term effect is to kill you before.
antoniobonifati 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@antoniobonifati "You can't compare smoking to other natural needs and activities like eating, doing sports or breeding. Smoking is non-natural. : It depends on how you define natural. However, even if wee say it is not natural, that says absolutely nothing about its value or weather it causes some type of delusion.I could just as easily say that my eye glasses are not natural. To say something is good or bad simply because it is or is not natural is to commit the naturalistic fallacy.
ryan84160 1 month ago
@antoniobonifati "And what about the demonstrated relationship between smoking and cancer? Surely smoking gives smokers a temporary pleasure, but that does not imply that it is good for one's health. " I did not say it was healthy, I simply said that it did not cause the smoker to believe anything that was not true.
ryan84160 1 month ago
@ryan84160 It's a very simple logic. If you accept that smoking harms you, then if you care about your health you should stop smoking in order to be logic and not fall into contradiction. If you don't care, you can either quit or continue smoking. Before you may not know scientifically that smoking was bad for you and you had the option of ignorance. But today to continue smoking one should be either a masochist logician or an illogical person like most of us.
antoniobonifati 1 month ago
@antoniobonifati I agree with you for the most part. Smoking is not healthy, there is no debating that. This is different from smoking makes you believe things that are not true. IF and only IF you care about the health of your lungs more than you care about the pleasure gained from smoking would it be irrational. However it is not a logical requirement than one value the health of their lungs over the pleasure they get form smoking.
ryan84160 1 month ago
@ryan84160 Your argument assumes that smoking only affects your lungs and not your overall health, which is not true according to medical literature. But let's suppose it is true. Could you live without lungs? Technology does not still allow that. Therefore if you care about keeping alive as long as possible, you should care about your lungs and thus shouldn't smoke. If you prefer pleasure over prolonged life, it is perfectly rational to continue smoking, of course. Your life, your choice.
antoniobonifati 1 month ago
@antoniobonifati "Your argument assumes that smoking only affects your lungs and not your overall health" No, I understand that smoking affects many aspects of health, I was just using the lungs as an argument.
ryan84160 1 month ago
@ryan84160 Your argument is logical, but you ignore the main fact about smoking so to not conclude that smoking is illogical. You can always select the antecedents as you wish, but I do not think such important things like "I care for my health" and "Smoking affects my health" can generally be ignored to make a good argument. If you just accept those two antecedents, it is a very simple deduction that you must not smoke. If you smoke, I hope to make you quit and live healthier and longer .
antoniobonifati 1 month ago
@antoniobonifati " If you just accept those two antecedents, it is a very simple deduction that you must not smoke." No, not necessarily. We value thing is hierarchical order.It is possible to care about your health, but care about the pleasure of smoking more. If you want to convince people to quit smoking, your job should be to give them reasons as to why they should value a longer life over smoking.
ryan84160 1 month ago
@antoniobonifati Correct me if I am wrong, but I assume you eat a least a somewhat normal diet. The fact that you do this shows that you value the pleasure of eating a normal amount of calories and having a somewhat satisfied feeling in you stomach more than you value living as long as possible.
ryan84160 1 month ago
@antoniobonifati It sounds like you reeaally want to have a puff from a good Cuban Cigar.
Maybe you don' t know it, but it' s like that. Hatred involves love, i guess
Can I give you a gift? Watch Bill Hicks on smocking and on Drugs, it' s a great great stand up comic and man. And I say you this: have you got a cell-phone? a wi-fi area near you? Do you eat normal food? Do you live in a city? Our life is all poisoned, please do not ruin my pleasure, focus on non-pleasure things first. Thanks
ulissegarnerone 1 month ago
@ulissegarnerone No, thanks. My pleasure is to be healthy and fit to run. BTW being able to run fast once saved my life. I was chased by a ferocious mastiff escaped from an enclosure because the electrician left the gate opened. Dogs are much faster than us, but that was a short one and I saw him running after me before. If I smoked, ~40% of my lungs would be gone. I don't need any drugs, there is enough pollution, slavery and deception in this world and prefer my mind to remain free and sound.
antoniobonifati 1 month ago
@ulissegarnerone Cell phones do nothing to out health and same can be said about wi-fi areas: the frequency of the electromagnetic radiation it too low to be harmful.
Now, you say it's your pleasure and that's cool, I don't want to get into your life. However, it's not only your health what you are damagind, but the others as well.
ElGuerrerodeHielo 1 month ago
@ElGuerrerodeHielo Unless you're in a closed, unventilated space, second hand smoke is negligible. Lets not forget why smoking indoors in public was banned, and public smoking outdoors has not been.
Funny though, it's on the edge now. Problem is, the best argument opponents can come up with is "I shouldn't have to smell it" (grow up) or the ever unsupported "It will kill all our children from a mile away!!!" (go fuck yourself). But sensationalism always wins, doesn't it?
VitriolicAC 1 month ago
@VitriolicAC Being honest, I don't really see any problem in people smoking, as long as they don't damage other people's health. I'm an asmatic, and I feel much better than when I enter bars, because of the lack of smoke... but I'm not against the existence of smokers clubs or things like that. I can't still see why a person would start smoking, nowadays, with all the existing information about its consequences, but anyway... it's not really of my business.
ElGuerrerodeHielo 1 month ago
@ElGuerrerodeHielo Yeah especially when alcohol causes damage on an astronomically higher level.
DrMadolite 1 month ago
@ElGuerrerodeHielo I can tell you why I started smoking. I was 14, it was another thing to try, and my step dad had made them easily available in the kitchen cupboard. "I won't get addicted". Oh god, haha.
I imagine lots of people had similar experiences.
VitriolicAC 4 weeks ago
@VitriolicAC Heh, that was normal some years ago, I'm afraid. And I can understand how people like you started. What is harder for me to understand is how, nowadays, with all the available information, a boy or a girl would decide to start.
ElGuerrerodeHielo 4 weeks ago
@antoniobonifati "Therefore if you care about keeping alive as long as possible, you should care about your lungs and thus shouldn't smoke." There is a tremendous amount of evidence that nearly starving yourself on an extremely calorie restricted diet can dramatically increase your lifespan. Anyone that knows this and continues to eat a normal diet must value the pleasure they get from eating a normal diet more than they do about living as long as possible.
ryan84160 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@antoniobonifati Living as long as possible for the sake of living as long as possible does not seem to make much sense to me and I doubt it makes much sense to anyone else.
"If you prefer pleasure over prolonged life, it is perfectly rational to continue smoking, of course. Your life, your choice." I actually don't smoke because I value my health and I dislike the taste/smell of smoke, but you are exactly right here, it would be rational under those circumstances.
ryan84160 1 month ago
@antoniobonifati People do all kinds of things that are dangerous or hazardous to their health such as motor cycle riding, skateboarding, eating calorie rich foods, having unprotected sex. If they care about their health more than the joy they get from these activities, it would be irrational to engage in them. On the other hand, if the value was reversed, then it would become rational.
ryan84160 1 month ago
@ryan84160 its more that they dont think about the consequences or have an irrational belief that the will beat the odds
mittROMNEY666 1 month ago
@mittROMNEY666 Yes, that is certainly the case with many people, but it is not necessarily the case. And even you do have an irrational belief that you are special and will beat the odds, smoking does not cause you to believe this as was suggested.
ryan84160 1 month ago
"I smoke the pipe all day long"
PussiesUnite 1 month ago
"...I owe my life to smoking"! lol yeah baybay so does Snoop Dogg! FC%K Joe Camel, the idea of BR on a billboard puffin' away totally makes me want to smoke more!
HealMeHealy 1 month ago
I quit smoking yesterday, why did I watch this?!
JohoFTW 1 month ago
DUDE F6%k, Joe Camel, BR will get all the kiddies puffin away! lol, BR owes his life to smoking, start smoking or die...lol. yeah....bummer
HealMeHealy 1 month ago
Wasn't it the case that asbestos dust, non degradable, was not strewn all over the roads in the car era, until the brakes got changed over to metallic. That asbestos is still around ,but wasn't in his day. The irritation of aveoli in the lungs may be the nascent cancer cells .
freetoliv 1 month ago
Cannot believe there is an argument here about the 'causal link between him smoking and surviving'. Well, yeah, there is one. Get over it you bunch of children.
thrashmetalteen 1 month ago
I flagged myself as spam because I don't like to leave multiple comments on one video.
FeelingFreshSon 1 month ago
There were airplanes in the 14th century?
Koryo8 1 month ago
interesting
KaitlynnLane 1 month ago
"Hasn't that shortened your life?"
Hello, Berty is alive and old as a fart right in front of you!
reckonaut 1 month ago
Bet he didn't inhale...
1tkeela625 1 month ago
He went on to live to the age of of 97........That probaby cocked up a few actuary tables.
movement26 1 month ago
LMAO this guy was great!
chinguidinsky 2 months ago
Yes yes...mistakes were made but not by us smokers....cognitive dissonance can strike even the brilliant.
NLPNVC 2 months ago
Hey, commenters, if you could get one interview with any philosopher from any period of time, who would it be? It's such a hard pick. Hume! I choose you!
FeelingFreshSon 2 months ago
Smoker and a feminist....so overrated....
SUpersaiyajinjerkbag 2 months ago
I lol'd hard as fuck when he said "I smoke a pipe all day".
thewarriorsrok 2 months ago
I would carry a gun on the plane if they would let me. Now I can't even smoke.
Entropy56 2 months ago
Those b@st@rds condemn us to death every time we fly by banning smoking on aircraft.
moonrockguy 2 months ago
OMG so much WIN!
lanuevagranada 2 months ago
Bertrand Russell smoked tabaco all the time for almost 80 years but he died when he was 97 from a freakin' influenza, hahahaha. If I smoke, I'll get cancer in 2 years...
astronomypouya 2 months ago
damn haha what a baller
anomyouscoward 2 months ago
true, look up at Bukken Bruse disaster in wikipedia.
ArtesianFalma 2 months ago
Smoking didn't save his life, the mere possibility that the plane didn't crash on land or so that the smoking section of the plane didn't drown rather than the non-smoking section owed to the possible outcome in his favour. There is clearly no causal relationship between his smoking and the course of the plane due either to the fault of the pilots or the mechanics.
grimslider75 2 months ago in playlist Rational Comedy
@grimslider75 actually there is. If Bertrand Russell had not been a smoker, he would have sat in the non smoking section and died. Because he insisted, due to his addiction, on sitting in the smoking section he lived. I`m sorry that that doesn`t jive with your negative views of tobacco.
Floodlezoot 2 months ago
@grimslider75 he wasn't saved for smoking or being a smoker, but by the fact that only the people on the other part of the plane died. it's a story without a moral and he surely knew that, get over it.
0the0drifter0 2 months ago
@grimslider75 Well obviously, but I think his comments were joking.
sjhorsfall 2 months ago
besides the coughs and smelling like shit, the really bad consequences such as cancer are a lottery. i only smoke tobacco with my weed though
dopeasfuckk 2 months ago
Errr... I'm definitely going to take up smoking from now on.
38dragoon38 2 months ago
@38dragoon38 no form of smoking is healthy, but pipes and cigars seem to be far less risky in moderation than cigarettes, it seems when it all comes down to it with the pipe and cigar the only real risk or major consequence of smoking it is oral cancer. Now if you're inhaling pipe/cigars and/or combining them with cigarettes and your unhealthy otherwise (very overweight etc) then they can be just as bad as cigarette or even worse! But smoking a pipe 1-3 a day is nothing really to worry about.
SmokingEssy7887 2 months ago
@SmokingEssy7887 my cousin has throat cancer from cigars, whereas I have nothing (yet) from smoking cigarettes.
ExistentialExistent 2 months ago
@ExistentialExistent how long have been smoking cigarettes and how long has he been smoking smoking cigars?
SmokingEssy7887 2 months ago
lololol.. Epicness.
PakhtunRockHard 2 months ago
Go Bertie!
julesthemadman 2 months ago
hahahahahahahahaha bertrand russel was the SHIIITT
tpstrat14 3 months ago 2
@tpstrat14 Hell yeah man! He smoked a pipe, criticized society, lived life to it's maximum and didn't afraid of anything! I consider Russell to be a renaissance man!
gobii81 3 months ago
(throws tobacco tin in air and exclaims) "The ontological argument is sound!"
Sirchud68 3 months ago 64
@Sirchud68
Kant rolls in his grave and mumbles "Existence...not..predicate".
FeelingFreshSon 1 month ago
@FeelingFreshSon hahahaha
soorayHOMS 1 month ago
@Sirchud68 i need that to be explained to me. I feel rather dim for asking.
LIGHTRONIX 1 month ago
@LIGHTRONIX Just something Russell said as a young man before realizing that the ontological argument is not, in fact, "sound"
Sirchud68 1 month ago
@LIGHTRONIX ok so he feels as if he were not a smoker he may of not of been or existed in the same way he had, therefore not becoming the man he is now, so "owing his life to smoking" isn't a literal, it's more like, "dude, I would soooo totally not of done that chick if I knew it was ur sister." argument! dig it?
HealMeHealy 1 month ago
@HealMeHealy ahah yea got it, jokes are always the funniest when you have to have them explained...
LIGHTRONIX 1 month ago
lol :) hahaha
FrenchyDuckbill 3 months ago
He landed in the Norwegian sea? That must of been FUCKING cold
bobdy9988 3 months ago
surely that is B's myth!!
miteaus 3 months ago
I love how he acts as thought a plane crash were nothing, like it had effected him so little that it completely slipped his mind until that moment.
penisfuckeye 3 months ago
@penisfuckeye Totally, I'm sitting here laughing at the fact still 15 secs after the video ended. :D Bertrand was such a blunt genius.
zalmanusa 3 months ago
Its incerdibly scary how cheerfully he tells us that everyone in the non smoking compartment died.
starofcctv94 3 months ago
@starofcctv94 Life was a lot less precious in those days lad, bet a good 30% of babies didn't even make it far out their mum's fanny holes to begin with.
MrBrunothedog 3 months ago
The folks at Phillip Morris should have watched this before they made tobacco advertising illegal.
Askimoula 3 months ago
Did Bertrand Russell ever publicly come out?
EGMAG 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I would like to reiterate that the original comment I posted was not directed at Russell or the person posting the video, but rather to RESPECTFULLY address some of the previous comments by other YouTubers....I hope that clarifies my position and alleviates any further confusion. Thank you.
Karmakat59 3 months ago
very interesting choice of notes.! smoke them up
bakersfieldmusicnow 3 months ago
The system exists for one purpose alone: to be annihilated! Thank you for smoking! :-D
MushroomedAnymore 3 months ago
Those were the days. When one could relay a story of a disastrous air accident with an air of complete stoicism.
93224956 3 months ago 107
@93224956 Beware romanticization! Beware!
ErikWithBrain 3 months ago
Too bad Russell Brand isn't even half as intelligent and Bertrand Russell
bahhhmeran 3 months ago
What is overlooked here is the fact that the tobacco he smoked in his pipe was not the modern day cigarette tobacco which is filled with over 500 carcinogenic chemicals like formeldahyde,etc. Also, the dynamics of smoking a pipe does not employ inhaling the smoke deep into the lungs like it is with smoking cigarettes. And, sitting at the back of a plane during a crash would certainly help the odds of survival, regardless of the smoking factor. Pretty weak argument for pro smoking, imo.
Karmakat59 3 months ago
@Karmakat59 Somehow, I don't think he was seriously arguing that smoking makes you more likely to survive an air crash...
93tomb 3 months ago
@93tomb Of course he wasn't - I was responding moreso to some of the other comments on this page :>
Karmakat59 3 months ago
@Karmakat59 lol fair enough :) Haven't really looked at many of the coments on here.
93tomb 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@93tomb Actually, this comment is not directed specifically to you - I just wanted to post this in the 'thread' connected to my original comment.........
I would like to reiterate that the original comment I posted was not directed at Russell or the person posting the video, but rather to RESPECTFULLY address some of the previous comments by other YouTubers....I hope that clarifies my position and alleviates any further confusion. Thank you.
Karmakat59 3 months ago
@Karmakat59 lol what an idiot. The interviewer clearly established it as a "vice" before asking Russell.....Russell was merely speaking about his indulgence of this certain vice, he was obviously not trying to fucking encourage people to go smoke. Most people don't really give a fuck about where they sit on a plane, Russell only sat at the back because of smoking thus that specific action saved his life. People like this should really refrain from watching intellectuals speak.