Bertrand Russell 2/3

[likeriver]

ya'll niggas arguing iz gay.

[cosmos99ify]

the British and Americans have surpasses Hitler in atrocities.....afghanistan ,Iraq, palestine, serbia, Vietnam.......Makes Hitler look like a boy!! Nazis we have....only they are called Nato, American military etc etc......

[EGMAG]

@hihellohowareyou1000 you retarded goon? <<

Sticks and stones. German atrocities and their inferior urges to rule the world goes way back before SHITler, was a speck of shit. Get your history straight; nazis formed in other names in all hatred and sadism up till ww2. Never again a nazi shall see the light of God.

[Dobaelful]

@EGMAG Greatest good for the greatest number of people. If germany had won quickly in World War one, there would have been much fewer deaths and no Nazi party and all of the things that came with it (hitler etc).

[EGMAG]

@Dobaelful

Your treatise is totally incorrect. Germany was a hotbed for prejudice and racism long before & after WW one. Hate & despicable occultism raged in the background & the foreground spreading false ideas. Germany transformed into a bloodthirsty hunger for more & more power! Even before pre-WW 1, Ger. was a rich leader in iron & steel industries. Winning WW1 would have greatly acellerated greed, occult nationalism, genocide of all other races, with sHitler dictating sooner, & stronger.

[Dobaelful]

@EGMAG Wrong. But I won't argue with you anymore, you seem to have prejudices yourself.

[EGMAG]

@Dobaelful have prejudices <<

I am totally prejudice against sHitler and his stupid book he used to brainwash the entire population of Germany into thinking they were some sort of master race robots who could destroy everyone else without getting severly paid back. This is a prejudice that is a prejudgement of those who are in the deepest part of evil criminal activity. Don't you prejudge everyday?

[Askimoula]

An old man who speaks of his experiences with brevity... Now he was a very special person!

[EGMAG]

He is a bit insane if he think giving up to shitler was an option. all nationalities would have become slaves thereafter!

[Dobaelful]

@EGMAG He was referring to world war 1 when he said it would have been better if britain had given up to germany, BEFORE the Nazi's etc. The Nazi party was a result of germany's horrendous economic situation after losing the first world war.

[EGMAG]

@Dobaelful

Tell us why Bertrand who is an Eglishman make any sense out of surrendering to INSANE Germany in WW ONE? You are ridiculous.

[6Vital6Remains6]

I forgot to mention. 7:13 of the last video is AMAZING, hehehe.

[wessers83]

@STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 As I said, it was mindless slaughter of a whole generation, beautifully captured by those such as Wilfred Owen and Edward Thomas. What did we gain by entering? Edward Thomas's haunting words are always in my mind whenever I think of it: "The flowers left thick at nightfall in the wood

This Eastertide call into mind the men,

Now far from home, who, with their sweethearts, should

Have gathered them and will do never again".

[STEPHENWRAYSFORD33]

@wessers83 I've read both Wilfred Owen & Sassoon. I agree with much of it, the nationalism & imperialism of that period were very dangerous, the tactics used by the generals on both sides were very terrible, also many of those who died were just conscripts, postmen, grocers, etc. But I think the invasion of Belguim made it right for Britain to intervine just like it was right to do so in 1939 when Poland was invaded, I don't believe there's any glory in war, but sometimes it has to be done.

[spaziototale]

es el norte de muchissima gente de bien

[wessers83]

A truly great man. How I admire his opposition to the mindless slaughter that was the First World War.

[STEPHENWRAYSFORD33]

@wessers83 I know WWI was an horrific event but I think Britain was acting justly in declaring war agaisnt Germany following it's invasion of a netural country. It's widely accepted the German army committed war crimes, executing civilians in Belgium. This wasn't one stray German solider but part of a much larger operation. Of course I have my doubts about the tactics used by the generals in WWI and the dirrection it took , but I think Britains entry into the war was morally defensible.

[nigelsenchez]

He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought. I'd like to see you accomplish anything in that manner with your non nasally and non whiny voice.

[joergus]

@nigelsenchez

I agree! :-)

[keeyk118b]

his voice is quite annoying. nasal and whiny.

[martindj88]

That is speaking as a politician. Speaking as a human being, on the other hand.. :D

[thyran]

As much as I like Sam Harris and Hitchens, calling them great thinkers while watching Bertrand Russell IS somewhat hilarious.

[skywize]

@thyran I wish I could reply to this with a more profound answer than 'I agree'. Sadly, the words escape me.

[Jordis0n]

@thecodeartist I just didn't want to waste the joke :)

[Jordis0n]

@thecodeartist rant about potential lack of great thinkers -- write 'morons' wrong

[watayapupuya]

Respond to this video...  The root of the word virago is "vir", as in "virile" .It is an archaic term now seldom used.

[watayapupuya]

@thecodeartist

Hitchens,a great thinker?!That's pretty funny!You probably also think that Sam Harris is as well.

[CadaverSplatter]

@watayapupuya Yes and kinda.

[ImperialUSA]

@watayapupuya Hitchens is a great thinker, but not necessarily on philosophy in the way Russell is. But he is very good on the existence of god, politics, and human rights, specifically free speech.

[101Dobermanns]

@thecodeartist we also lost Sagan time ago, but it´s up to us to keep their word alive. Great video upload jjvanka!

[setnorm]

@thecodeartist if you didn't bash the hell out of people by saying such things I am pretty sure you could find more true friends :(

[acmeanvilco]

he says drunken Viragoes

[plarpusan12]

At 4:41 in the video he discusses the church he had been at as being stormed by something, but I cant make out the word he's saying. Does anbody know what he's saying at that point in the video?

[rebekkabua]

@plarpusan12 He says the churched was stormed by a mixture of colonial troops and drunken viragos. A virago is a term for "a noisy, domineering woman" (according to Wikipedia at least)

[Bfdidc]

"He's a well known philosopher. He's the brother of an earl!" That part cracked me up while listening. My co-workers were wondering why I was cackling.

[EliotKrupa]

It took we a while to realize he said brother of an earl, at first I thought he said, "and he's a brother in hell".and then the police saved me.

[whole27]

When you look at really old pictures of people who have since died, you imagine them talking like us and walking like us, and sitting like us, etc but then when you see video like this....it blows my mind! Everyone back in the day talks, sits, acts so oddly!! lol

[Pigroota]

Imagine the daughter he is referring to and how angry at her mother she would have been for depriving her of the teachings of B.R. That is, assuming she had a brain that was not completely subverted by religion

[evernetherall]

YT??? Have you summarily removed ALL Thumbs Up for comments? Where are they? ~~ these are FUN to use! Why you keep takin' alla the FUN outta everything???  >_< ,~_~\\

[Kyuslydian]

Is this the same guy?

/watch?v=NPiGJBHVadA

[irishgeal1]

lmao, i bet churchills masters i.e, the 1936, = [ the focus group ] i.e. international bankers, truth deniers, were not best pleased with this man.

[eahazell]

convicted for his writings.. in this "enlightened" age. The power of the printed word.

[eahazell]

why should I believe what can't be proved...those axioms in math is what turned me away and stopped my pursuit of math and numbers..that same thing made one of the greatest minds of the era a prominent mathematician..and yet we both question...I wasn't near as clever and it cost me dear.

[MountBaldy]

"He's the brother of an Earl! and then the police rushed and saved me"

This is so wonderful! Thanks for posting!

[mrbadtea]

Great man whose writings I didn't understand in college. Yet after many years of my own reflections realize how intelligent you must be to understand even the simplest thoughts of reasonable men

[mrbadtea]

Great man whose writings I didn't understand in college.  Yet after many years of my own reflections realize how intelligent you must be to understand even the simplest thoughts of reasonable men

[7Supernova7]

how did this guy make his money ? i dont get all sienticts wich are finding formulas out at home how they can afford it

[Jimmycrackcorn23456]

8:40 did he the woman wanted him to rape her daughter?

[aloversings]

@Jimmycrackcorn23456 he said that she was afraid that he would.

[Jimmycrackcorn23456]

@aloversings oh wow ok. thanks

[GuamIsGood]

Fiona Apple Waltz (Better than Fine) with Nickel Creek

[Diosibundo]

Drunken what? Veragos? Hiragos?

[fearinfaith]

how very arrogant of you to assume that politics are more mundane than philosophy. I find it also very funny that you're more apt to believe Wittgenstein, whereas Wittgenstein's overall influence upon human life is rather uninteresting. Stop engorging yourself with Bertrand Russell beliefs, he did after-all, say that the only thing he could be sure about was that nothing was an absolute truth. Your standard of taste is subjective, now gtfo.

[Questfortruth86]

The great war was the greatest of all disorders. So much so, that its ramifications, even to this day, are hardly understood. It was the death of liberalism.

[MultiUniv3rsal]

The wrong side won WWII, giving rise to bolsheviks and fascists.

Remember the countries that came to the defense of the guy who got assassinated were the ones who lost.

[biggsy182]

Yes, made a typo.

[biggsy182]

Scotty is of course, quite correct. When you have read Wittgenstiens "Tractaus Logico Philosophicus" in light of todays physical understanding, get back to me with your feeble politics.

[dantean]

It is a mark of Russell's greatness that he didn't think it appropriate to sink into the recesses of his own mind & remain permanently lost in thought the way many philosophers prefer. In this video he describes watching men going off 2 war 2 be butchered--he was able to see outside of his own musings to feel--and then do--something in the real world. The kids he described didn't need 1st 2 peak the intellectual curiosity of the author of Principia Mathematica b4 he could give a crap about them.

[Prototron]

Politics is a branch of philosophy

[johnpearceonearth]

@Prototron Then again, you can call anything that requires thought and reflection a branch of philosophy.

[qxw667]

Cool!

[currentslacker]

some one thought you would rape their daughter!!

thats insane!

[AnonymousWhitePerson]

Bertrand Russell was explicitly deployed by the "establishment" for his ideas on contaminating the culture and intellectual life of the United States.

[khargushoghli]

You have been deployed by the establishment to make Anonymous White People look stupid.

[zarakhast]

Heidegger points out very clearly at the outset of his thought that Being (isness) is not a being. He then goes on to demonstrate what a genuinely philosophical question must ask : it must, in asking about beings, confront the other extreme possibility : no beings : nothing. Only when this question is asked is there philosophy. Plato and Aristotle called this moment "wonder". Heidegger agrees with them and also gives it a name : Ereignis (The Event).

[zarakhast]

Russell would have dismissed what in Heidegger's view is the fundamental question of metaphysics, i.e. Why is there anything rather than nothing ? on "logical" grounds. Because according to logic there cannot - could never - "be" nothing anyway, and so the question is nonsensical. But to say that something "is" is to attribute Being to it : isness is not the same as "a" being or the totality of beings : it somehow belongs to them all in advance of our speakiing about them, but it is not a being.

[GeorgesBarras]

If I can grow old like Bertrand Russell, I'll be happy man.

[codingambition]

I wish the leaders of my country were like Bertrand Russell. He is amazing! When I hear him speak, I am reminded of the way Chomsky speaks. He answers the question posed before him very candidly.

[D3TOX3R]

what a delightfully charming man.

[thejugglenaut91]

principles of mathematics was great

[SirHappyThe1st]

He comes across as highly intelligent, moral, wordly wise and with a wicked sense of huimour still at this old age.

The actual observation of the great mind of one of the great philsophers is a wonder to behold.

[jacobtb1]

i just read this guy's autobiography. what a badass.

[ManilaSyndicate]

Heh, it's amusing how such a mild-mannered man could be so controversial.

[mose3]

...love is wise, hatred is foolish. In this world...getting more and more closely interconnected, we have to learn to tolerate each other...to put up with the fact that some people say things that we don't like. We can only live together in that way and if we are to live and not die together we must learn a kind of charity and...tolerance...absolutely vital to the continuance of human life on this planet.

Bertrand Russell

[mose3]

"I can't bear the thought of many hundreds of millions of people dyeing ONLY and SOLELY because the rulers of the world are STUPID and WICKED, and I can't bear it."

B. Russell

[Aggie254]

That quote was so beautiful. Thank you for sharing. You made me pro-nuclear disarmament because of it.

[mose3]

And I thank You for appreciating our dear and admired Russell.

[zarakhast]

A great logician but not a philosopher. Philosophy asks more fundamental questions than logic allows - and philosophy 'invented' logic. Everything falls into question in philosophy, including the thinking which is doing it. This was something which Russell never considered. He was a worshipper at the temple of reason, but did it a misservice because he (staggeringly) couldn't see that thinking itself is derived and not original.

[zarakhast]

How can mathematics be the 'key to understanding the universe', except perhaps in respect of the form the universe might (but doesn't necessarily) take ? What about the very existence of the universe - can mathematics answer that question, i.e. why it exists at all and what 'exist' means ?

What made him turn from philosophy to social work was hopefully his recognition that he was crap at philosophy. Politically I agree with him entirely - but as a philosopher he's hopeless !

[BlacknWhitesAlright]

I hope you realize what a huge statement it is to call the founder of modern analytic philosophy "crap" and "hopeless." Apart from that, though, it seems to me that you're spending an awful lot of time parsing out what is and isn't philosophy, which strikes me as being akin to "THAT'S NOT ART!" and other such nonsense. Also, why need things have meaning, existence included? I personally am just fine with letting the world be rather meaningless, aside from the meaning I give it.

[crusty7208]

I meant to say...before clumsy fingers did some mischief...who are your geniuses...zarakhast?

[zarakhast]

Okay then you cheeky monkey (please express your own views at some point) :

Heidegger (first and foremost) and Nietzsche : these two are in a different league from the rest. Heidegger is the greatest thinker the earth has ever seen.

Apart from those two : Dostoyevsky. Kierkegaard, Knut Hamsun, Viktor Frankl, a bit of Pascal. Plato, Aristotle and the Presocratics - all the Greeks, who were far greater then we are.

(But not this boring, self-important, self-contradicting creature).

[crusty7208]

I'd like to chime in here for moment - zarakhasSo are your

[zarakhast]

So you should stop admiring Russell and become altogether more logical. Because logic ought to tell you that thought is not its own creator and ought to go out looking for what made it possible - and that is 'being'. But 'being' is ambiguous. How could thought be without being ? How could anything be without being ? It would be profoundly illogical to claim that being could be done away with so easily. I find it incredible that intelligent people cannot see this point.

[zarakhast]

Or should we be as stupid as, say, Dawkins - who rather belatedly takes great pleasure in demonstrating that such things as fairires do not 'exist' - when what it means to 'exist' is a question which has passed him by and which he does not seem to understand as a question ? Struth ? If they're your geniuses then good luck to you. How obtuse can you get ?

[zarakhast]

Surely the aficionados of Russell's thought, logical as they are, can grasp that the word 'being' can have both a verbal and a nominal sense. And also that the 'laws of thought' depend entirely on the laws of 'being' - even if this only turns out to be a word. Because if being is only a word then logic is also 'only a wod'. The fact is that 'being' is the primary matter for thought in philosophy. 'Thought' (and therefore) logic does not take precedence, because it is only another kind of being.

[zarakhast]

Being, as Aristotle (the father of logic) himself maintained, is the real target of philosophical enquiry. This has always been the case - even when 'philosophy' has denied being. Being is unavoidable. Speak a single sentence and you are speaking being : there is no sentence which cannot be resolved into an articulation of being. Not only philosophy, but even chitter-chatter, is 'metaphysical'. No other being has language. To deny metaphyscis is a total contradiction : you already ARE it.

[zarakhast]

But metaphysics proper is self-conscious thinking, i.e. thinking which recognizes what it is thinking. The rest of thinking is thinking only in that it uses assumptions already given to it by metaphysics : and the whole of science falls into this category. What could be a bigger badge of respect these days than to be a scientist ? And yet every science takes its principles from a previous philosophy - and does NOT advance knowledge in any essential way.

[zarakhast]

Oh dear, spelling mistake - that should make everyone jump on me !

[zarakhast]

Philosophy = metaphysics = ontology. Somebody said that 'transcendental relationships' ought to have been done away with a long time ago. But language - being even able to speak - is already a transcendental relationship. No other creature is capable of it, as far as we know. Some people need to read Plato again - with a bit more reverence ! To relate to beings AS beings is peculiar to mankind. That IS metaphysics. If you can't realize this then are you really a philosopher ?

[siralfredb]

zarakhast is one of those people who live within their own intellectual constructs, not in the real world. They are sideshows to life. Not relevant

[zarakhast]

Genuine philosophizing thinks about number, quantity and space in a different manner than mathematics does. According to certain philosophers (e.g. Nietzsche) there IS NO SPACE. Space is a fiction. Mathematics and physics, of course, work with the assumption that space exists, is really present. Nietzsche that it is not really there. That's a pretty fundamental difference ! And does any logician ever bother to ask what makes logic possible ? Illogic perhaps ? This, too, is Nietzsche's view.

[strayfolkhenke]

How can you possibly say that mathematics assumes space?

[Myndir]

Nietzsche is at worst a pseudo-philosopher, or to be charitable a post-philosopher. He puts the Will above Reason, thus consigning himself to the sub-sentient realm; unsurprisingly, considering this denial of his human nature, he ended in a pitiful state of being (or is that Being?).

[shilohwillcome]

Of course logicians bother to ask what makes logic possible. Do you ever bother to look these questions up before you ask them condescendingly?

[zarakhast]

Well then - what does make logic possible ?

[shilohwillcome]

Your asking a question which involves many technical concepts. I didn't say there is a definite answer, but if you want to begin your search, you may want to begin with Frege's "The Foundation of Arithmetic." My personal view is the existence of God makes logic possible.

[zarakhast]

I've no quarrel with your personal view. It stands to reason that God, if He (or It) is the Creator, would have created reason too and that it would relate back to Him and be justified by him. But (the Christian) God is already based on a particular metaphysical point of view - which I wouldn't ultimately agree with. In my view we can only understand logic (or rather thought) on the basis of an understanding of Being, opaque though that may sound. Aristotle, contrary to what another poster ...

[zarakhast]

.. on here claimed, did not regard the first question of philsophy as, What is the good life ? - but as, What is being ? It's surprising that the father of logic should be consistently ignored on this point !

[procommenter]

"God for myself, He hears that name of thine, And sees within my eyes, the tears of two." VI of "Sonnets from the Portuguese" -- Elizabeth Browning

"Our world has sprouted a weird concept of security and a warped sense of morality. Weapons are sheltered like treasures and children are exposed to incineration." -- Bertrand Russell

[zarakhast]

To be polite, Russell is not a good philosopher. Not a philosopher at all, in fact. Mathematics is not philosophy. Neither is 'logic'. Neither is 'science'. Neither is 'religion'. Philosophy, whenever it is genuine, places itself in contrast with NOTHING - and so loses its place. Also, philosophers (genuine ones) wouldn't do interviews or be concerned about 'fame' - as Russell clearly was. He was just a brilliant logician - nothing more.

[noah9999]

blah blah blah .....

[Estoppel7]

To say "mathematics is not philosophy" is not equivalent to "there is no philosophy in mathematics". Indeed, there are avenues for philosophical inquiry in mathematics. The same for religion, the sciences and logic. In this sense, Russell is a philosopher, and he knew this as he is a "brilliant logician". And, logic is something that seems to have eluded you.

[zarakhast]

You didn't get my point. Logic and mathematics are possibilities of thought which deal with certain categories already established by a more fundamental and original thinking : philosophy. 'Thinking' (and therefore logic) is not independent of Being, nor is number (hence mathematics). Philosophy is inquiry into Being which seeks for the foundations of thinking, number etc. It is never 'governed' by any mathematical or logical laws. When we think in this way we slip out of philosophy.

[shilohwillcome]

Your making the same mistake Frege pointed out to be an error. That is making logic psychological and not independent of thinking. Thinking is governed by independent laws.

[zarakhast]

The law of Being dictates all : there are no 'independent' laws of thinking. As human we relate not only to beings but also - through language - to Being. Being is not the totality of beings (the universe) - but the Being of this totality, and of each being. Being itself, however, is not a being. Language (the relation to Being), as far as we know, is exclusive to humans. This relation is transcendent - i.e.. metaphysical. It is to deny metaphysics : we ARE metaphysics.

[zarakhast]

Sorry, that should have read 'It is impossible to deny metaphysics ...'

[HNK222]

"Also, philosophers (genuine ones) wouldn't do interviews"

Your insecurity and feelings of overwhelming inadequacy and inferiority, at the root of your irrational attempts to try to diminish Bertrand Russell, are extremely unhealthy. Youll find, if stop blaming others for your flaws, youll be a much happier and healthier person.

[zarakhast]

I'll ignore your puerile insults, which I notice are not backed up by any of your own views. I have no need to prove myself. There is an order of rank among questions which determines who the genuine greats are - indeed who the genuine philosophers are. Philosophy is metaphysics. Metaphysics is ontology. For Russell the meaning of 'Being' is self-evident - not even worth inquiring into. For this reason alone he is not a philosopher. The ancients would have scorned his shallowness.

[Estoppel7]

Your conception of what philosophy may be is not fully developed. "Philosophy is metaphysics. Metaphysics is ontology." What this fails to address the the epistemological aspect. While you say, quite rightly, that philosophy is about what objects exist (being), you leave out the component that must answer, "How is it we can know about what objects exist?" On this topic, as well as ontology, Russell has been quite thorough in his inquiry. Read 'The Problems of Philosophy'.

[zarakhast]

I'm well acquainted with epistemology. But knowledge of Being must first of all BE in order to be knowledge ! Ontology is thus necessarily prior to epistemology in terms of the fundamentality of what it considers. 'Being' does not denote 'a' being or the sum total of beings but 'isness' itself - which is different and is precisely NOT 'a' being. Epistemology inquires into the being of the knower, physics into the being of nature, etc. 'Being' in each case means something different.

[Myndir]

"Philosophy is metaphysics."

False. The first great and profound question of philosophy was "What is the good life?", which is a question is ethics, not metaphysics. Metaphysics is at best an instrument.

"Metaphysics is ontology".

False again. Ontology is a particular sub-component of metaphysics.

[LouTheDesigner]

If philosophy is metaphysics, then why would so many analytic philosophers attempt to do away with metaphysics? Transcendental relationships should have been done away with long ago.

[BlacknWhitesAlright]

I am not and will not claim to be a philosopher, but I can certainly point out that appealing to "the ancients" is an informal fallacy, and that if there is no one better to appeal to than "the ancients" - ie. if no real progress has been made since classical times - I see no reason why anyone should bother with philosophical thought.

I should also like to point out that accusing Russell of being insufficiently transcendental is foolishness, like accusing the Pope of being overly religious.

[zarakhast]

There is never any "progress" in philosophy. Philosophy is not the same as science. When philosophy is philosophy it is perfect and no further progress is either necessary or possible. The ancient Greek thinkers - and by those I mean the pre-Socratics rather than Socrates or Plato - had already arrived at the 'thought which steers all things through all things" (Heraclitus). But this thought is of such a nature that it will always need to be re-thought, re-discovered.

[BlacknWhitesAlright]

I would argue that it is impossible for philosophy not to progress, as philosophers through history are exposed to different conditions and are surrounded by different ideas and practices, and must adjust the great philosophical ideas to take into account all that they see around them, and posit new ones where the old ideas fail. Hence with globalization, we get the postmodern stream of thought.

[zarakhast]

ALL language, all speech is already transcendental, i.e. relates to beings as beings. Being qua being is named by Aristotle as THE concern of philosophy. Russell cannot avoid this transcendental relationship. He doesn't see the full scope of the question of Being and he (and all the other so-called 'analytic philosophers') blocks the way to the question on the basis of this misunderstanding. To deny Being is impossible. As soon as you speak you have asserted it - without knowing what it means.

[BlacknWhitesAlright]

As I've said I'm no philosopher, but it seems to me that "being" is quite a big and fancy construct that's been erected by humans in order to justify and figure out our own existence. Rather like religion, I should think.

Really though, this whole discussion is probably silly, as my views are quite radically different from yours and I honestly haven't got the education for it anyway.

[zarakhast]

Nice joke about the Pope though.

[scotty123123]

Being is not a "construct". Don't be ridiculous. Something exists. This existence is always the first. the most mysterious of questions.

And yes, when philosophy is philosophy it is perfect and no "progress" is possible. Bertrand Russell was a true philosopher when he was young. Unfortunately he gave up philosophy to write his silly opinions about politics and other trivial matters.

[zarakhast]

Being, as the highest of all the categories, which is not a category itself and cannot be defined in terms of anything else, is the whole of reality : is "is" itself. That's why when we try to talk about it we are forced to utter apparent (or real) absurdities. Bertrand Russell was a genius without doubt. I don't mind his later antics, which were all well meant. I don't think he understood Heidegger though : his strict adherence to logical thinking prevented him from being able to see ....

[zarakhast]

the question of the meaning of Being AS a question. In all other respects Bertrand Russell was a model philosopher. But this one question concerning the meaning of Being did not occur to him.

[zarakhast]

"Something exists" : what does that say ?

What if NOTHING exists ?

Something is not the same as its being. Being somehow belongs to a being in advance, But it is obviously not a being itself. What is it then ? Is it nothing ? Analytical philosophers are not analytical enough.

[scotty123123]

"What if nothing exists?" If something does exist, then the claim that "nothing exists" is false. You're simply playing around with the "~" sign. "~~(Ex) insert biconditional sign (Ex)"... "~~~(Ex) biconditional ~(Ex)" ad infinitum. This is a trivial question of logic.

My comment wasn't directed at you, but at BlacknWhitesAlright. I agreed with your earlier comment. They were correct. I disagree with your later comments.

[Crosskeys]

@scotty123123 Politics is a trivial matter? Hmmm ignorance is bliss, eh?

[scotty123123]

Compared to philosophy, politics is trivial and intellectually uninteresting.

[inphlux]

lol

[dantean]

I used 2 feel the same until concluding that my head had been turned around if i could not c that study of success in the political realm has life/death consequences that are real not abstract. Years of telling myself that my interests in metaphysics logic etc kept me above the fray was turned into realization that my thinking of the affairs of humans as "trivial" & in need of being made more interesting 2 me b4 I'd get involved felt like a character flaw of which I could no longer feel 2 proud.

[321lawc]

@Crosskeys Quite trivial. The world is run by evil, greedy, lying, manipulative assholes; that's the way it has always been and probably always will be. Only slightly less trivial is determining what your ideal political system would be and that is not very hard or enlightening.

[Crosskeys]

Politics in theory and politics in practice are two different things.

[tmolet]

What a great vid. Anything by the great man is appreciated. Listening to him - this is the first time for me after having read most of his socio-polical writings - I'm struck by his clarity, precision, careful use of words adn his total, sometimes alarming, honesty.

Many thanks for posting it.

[GordonMorrice]

"He was my fag at Winchester."

Poofy cunt. ;)

[siyengar9821]

jjvanka - thanks so much for posting this. not a surprise that only 6534 people have viewed it.

[inkonwater]

Thanks. These things make me a fan of YouTube.

[crazy87jim]

distinguished writer-meh

famous philospher-meh

BROTHER OF AN EARL!

[dcahvaind]

Seriously, I think he felt guilty about sex.

"At fifteen, started to have intensive sexual passions. While I was sitting at work, endeavouring to concentrate, I would be continually distracted by erections, and I fell into the practice of masturbating, in which, however, I always remained moderate. I was much ashamed of this practice, and endeavoured to discontinue it. I persisted in it, nevertheless, until the age of twenty, when I dropped it suddenly because I was in love."

[tomsega]

Well.. you have to remember he grew up in a bourgeois, religious, Victorian environment in the middle of the 19th century! Of course that society indoctrinated one with a sense of prudishness. And he's talking about his adolescents - when he was still a Christian.

[dcahvaind]

novel, Remains Of The Day

may reflect that society. And I think the situation is ,more or less, similar to the Victorian environment in the middle of the 19th century.

[Merseyrock]

Yes, although the "Remains of the Day" is rather set in the Edwardian period - in the early 20th century, on the aftermath of VIctorian era. There are, of course, vestiges of Victorianism in Edwardian England. But a more accurate picture of Bertrand Russell's early life environment could be construed in consideration of a Bernard Shaw or Oscar Wilde play. From the latter, see "Lady Windemere's Fan," or "An Ideal Husband," on youtube, to savor the dynamics of the upper classes - as mediated.

[dcahvaind]

i am from a non-english speaking country

and couldn't understand some words,

would any body like to help me?

2:23 And i certainly __ something _______ to religious satisfaction.

[jjvanka]

In my ear: 'I certainly got something analogous to religious satisfaction'. Which makes sense.

[dcahvaind]

thanks

[menonfire12]

@jjvanka

Is there a transcript of this ?

[jjvanka]

@menonfire12

I guess there is -- found this on Wikipedia: "A further anthology appeared in 1989 and was published by BBC Books. Introduced by Joan Bakewell, and tied in with a (terrestrial) screening of selected episodes, it includes transcripts of the programmes with Bertrand Russell, Henry Moore, Stirling Moss, Gilbert Harding, Adam Faith and Albert Finney"

[menonfire12]

@jjvanka

Great! Thanks a lot.

[AtticusStount]

@dcahvaind

And I certainly got something analagous to religious satisfaction.

Analygous = close to; of comparable worth.

Good luck in your English studies.

[thejugglenaut91]

whatever happened to interviews like this? Seriously

[TeaSprout]

I wish that I could go back into time 100 years and marry this man.

[mc0558]

He would have broken your heart as he did many others.

[nyees]

great interview! Bertrand Russell the great

[rogermoore27]

thank you so much.

[djkonservo]

Actually, Russell had the occasion to feel guilt about sex with his friend poet T.S. Eliot's wife. ;)

[mc0558]

Perhaps because Eliot shortly afterwards committed her to an lunatic asylum and she stayed there for the rest of her life.

[ron6294]

Thanks jjvanka, Russell seems to have been a wonderful human being. I hope I am as articulate, lucid and energetic when I reach 87. Great interview!

[thesunisalwaysrising]

Thank You jjvanka! Fantastic Interview.

[narnarogue83]

He was a wonderful man and so articulate and engaging even at such an old age here!

[lebombo]

loved this.