lol nothing gives me a rush like continental philosophy..no matter how much analytic philosophy gets everything cleared up and squared away...continental philosophers will always crawl out of the woodwork to ask hard hitting questions like "what is the purpose of a question" or "do my eyes exist when I blink"
hey, for you and everybody else, I found this website
blip.tv/philosophy-unveiled
LOL it's not spam, it's some system based on MBTI that Lane Friesen made which explains why philosophical systems differ and how different philosophers perceived the world based on their mental structures...it's certainly interesting if nothing else.
The man shows a robotic misunderstanding of Nietzsche. I don't trust Russel for it, and for that reason alone. If Nietzsche represented man's recovery from sickness, Russel never saw appreciated the sickness, which betrays something rather sinister...to me.
@theDeckisStacked furthermore, He was a man of self bias?no. No one can detatch all emotion and be completely objective, but relatively speaking he was very much the opposite of self biased. An athiest at that time, or even now, doesn't conform to religion even though it is in their social interest to do so.
@theDeckisStacked um,no. Reality is the set of things we know to be the case which is defined using logic,that includes probability. Probabilty is a part of logic. And quantum mechanic,really? Scapegoat. So we haven't figuered it out yet, so what? We will one day, using...wait for it...LOGIC. you know how I know this? that's how science works. logic is the method that humans use to understand the world, reality.
@karenmelissa002 I don't like the way Russel spoke of Nietzshe, who was right: the very essence of logic is absurd. Nature measuring itself is doomed to fall short. It is a paradox and a Christian one at that to presume as Socrates did "the only life worth living is the life examined." The paradox arises when you demand a man examine himself examining, to my mind, it betrays guilt at it's heart which Kierkegaard later drew out of it's tomb. Russel was simply his own experiences.
Clarity and clear thinking are, at best, culturally, socially,or family, based.He was raised in what could be termed a privileged position in society, he did not have to have his head down and is arse up trying to provide for a family. He simply holds an opinion, same as anyone else. And it is not necessarily correct. Or wrong.
We need more people like Bertrand Russell and less popes, priests, generals and televangelists. People who can think independently without religious demagogues telling them what to do. The answers lie within you. Bertrand is asking us to THINK more, Question more--like scientists and reasoning people. He is the real deal and is my hero.
My parents were rabid Pentecostal Christians who did their best to indoctrinate me as a lad. However, one day I managed to smuggle in a book by BR - forget which one - and came across the most liberating phrase a youngster could hope to find which validated what I was already doing: 'question everything'. He was like breath of fresh air... not quite sure he seems that now.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
to all the youtube warriors who think that bertrand russell is a "tool", how many nobel prizes have you won? you all need to research "original thought". he was doing ground breaking things before your parents were born. brilliant people do brilliant things. the rest of us either agree or disagree with our limited intellect and understanding.
Sadly you did miss the hidden gem of logic and rationality. It was stated plain and clear and yet it only went in one of your ears and out the other. This is backed up by the ignorance oozing out of your comment.
Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
,,hello , i've quit smoking,,,,,,,,and there are many ways to express our self trough clarity,but always there's proximity,,,,,ex poetry and mathematics
My question is, how does one reach clarity without first having experienced "inexact thinking"? Seriously, this man is a complete tool, and that is because he is so far immersed in his own ego that he has no apparent idea of the state of humanity (not to mention his advice on smoking). If he did he wouldn't be offering solutions to the complex nature of being with matter-of-fact ideas that "we all should find easy to follow". Life is clearly not that simple, and Mr. Russel died a long time ago.
@stellasdaddyful Russell is advocating that people train their ability to think clearly about the facts of matters of their lives and the world, rather than just making assumptions based on guesses, dogma or misinformation, and you think he is a tool? Did you even understand what he said?
@JayKeaton I wonder if you understood my original comment. Russell appears to be saying one is right and the other is wrong. I'm saying that one can't reach right unless they have experienced wrong. Check again and you will see what my point is instead of going off half-cocked and letting your thoughts be too emotionally charged. And yeah; he's a complete tool. Check out his advice on smoking - especially the part about how it "saved his life" - if you need any proof.
@elismusicshow But someone can *be* right, without ever having been wrong. Someone can do something the *right* way, without ever having done it the wrong way, and they can understand why the reason they are doing it is right. This is not half-cocked, I fully understood what you are saying and I understood how you reached your conclusion, but you are not right. For some reason you are assuming that "being right" is something you can only do after "being wrong". But that is incorrect.
@JayKeaton You make me laugh. Have you never heard of trial-by-error, the wisdom in the mistake, learning, etc.? It appears not. Thanks for the conversation, and best wishes in your untroubled world.
@elismusicshow learning is exactly what Russell is advocating here. You said it is not possible to be right without first being wrong, I addressed that claim. Now you are implying that Russell is saying trial by error doesn't exist, or some such nonsense. Exact thinking is something he is saying should be applied to areas of life, you apply exact thinking to your trial and error, you apply exact thinking while considering your mistake etc. You, sir, seem to be the tool.
@elismusicshow If the tool you are is one that doesn't understand the wise words of a wise man, then yes, you are functioning correctly. A fully functional tool of ignorance.
In many cases, as I have personally observed from Russell's works and statements, is that the brilliance of Russell lies in the honest simplicity of his statements.
People occasionally dismiss these statements due to their simplicity without realizing the profound implications they truly hold.
I agree, when people talk about philosophy today in classes, it's like a group pleasuring itself with their own language that no one else understands, nor cares about. Bertrands philosophy is for the people - anyone watching, knows immediately what is meant. I think philosophy, perhaps combined with the intelligent wisdom of an old man, is much more appealing than talking about exisential philosophies of mind. lol
@RJhasFLOW Ya, I heard somewhere that Russel was a big fan of Occam's razor. Even before he had heard of it, he believed that the simpler the statement, the better.
@RJhasFLOW fuck religion, fuck meta-physics/philosophy, a lot of this is just food for thought for over-thinking intellects who need analytical stimuli to prevent depression/madness. Bertrand knew this.
@RJhasFLOW : You know, one of my 'friends' at school told me that he knew [of] Bertrand Russell &c &c. But this 'friend' turned out to be one of the greatest liars and manipulative persons under the sun. A little like Russell in Russell's dismissive attitude, but totally unlike Russell in his downright nastiness.
It seems to me, a fundamental dishonesty, a fundamental treachery to intellectual integrity to hold a belief because you think it's useful, and not because you think it's true." B, Russell, 1959.
Wow! What an amazingly thoughtless comment! The more we have to infer, the more a comment or line of reasoning is open to misinterpretation. Articulation, clarity and completing the reasoning with its supporting ideas is everything. That's where B.R. comes up very short of the mark.
I agree, and It is rather obvious that Russel himself would agree with you to. It can be thoughtless to deduce or infer anything from this video alone for the man mightn't have explained his thinking as clearly as he wishes others to think.
I once tried to read the Principia Mathematica, but I gave up. It was over my head, and my hat is off to anyone who can understand it. A History of Western Philosophy is quite good and well written. That I hardily recommend. I don't entirely agree with Russell's atheism, but I do agree there is no afterlife. But it may not be "nonsense", as he dismisses it. As one sage said, "In this world anything may be possible." This is a strange place we inhabit. Nothing should be taken for granted.
There is a ridiculous canard that Russell supported eugenics. Read what he actually wrote! It is a demonstration of what is exactly wrong with eugenics. He says that any implementation of eugenics would lead to arbitrary governement determination of what types were 'undesirable' which would lead to tyranny Anyone claiming to be against eugenics can not deny the wisdom in Russell's views.
Whether you allow yourself to think exactly, or inexactly, it doesn't matter, your prejudices, you bias. your self-interest, comes in, in ways you don't notice, and you do bad things without knowing it. Self-deception is very easy
@Chinchilla7Man I don't think he could've put that more simply. For example the famous Contigo ergo sum "I think therefore I am" was probably not thought by descartes, but still holds profound implications if the person would've examined it more thoroughly
@luisaraujodramaturgo "Creo que el pensamiento exacto es muy importante para el ser humano, pq cuando uno se permite pensar inexactemente, los prejuicios y rencores van por caminos que no esperabas y entonces cometes malas acciones sin saber que las estas cometiendo, entonces es muy fácil decepcionarse a si mismo . Pienso que el pensamiento claro es inmensamente importante, pero creo que la filosofia antigua (supongo que se refiere a la filosofia classica) no es adequada para un mundo moderno."
@luisaraujodramaturgo Aún que no soy muy bueno en inglés te he traducido el video. En referencia a la filosofia classica, Russell siempre pensó que la filosofia classica no aporta soluciones, llegando a decir que Neitsche era más un literato que un filósofo, por citar a tantos personages en sus textos...
Creo que Russell se refiere al pensamiento empírico o demostrable.
Como decia Einstein: "la toeria es asesinada tarde o temprano por la experiéncia"
I wish this piece were a bit longer...I'd like to know what he regards as the needs of the world...or how to apply exact thinking to constructive use. Still very interesting
Zionism can best be illustrated by a big British flag with Queen Elizabeth at the top spouting an Opium Pipe and flanked on one side by economist, Milton Friedman. (The latter being subject of the Ugly Truth About Milton Friedman.)
The occultic symbol of the piratical Opium smuggling British East India Company is the Skull and Bones.
The City of London Financial Oligarchy seized control of the Bank of England in 1694 and interbred with the filthy gentry. This private bank was founded by William Patterson, a Scottish Templar. This Oligarchy became primary shareholders in the British East India Company and looted Bengal India, the richest province in the world at that time through Standard Chartered Bank.
In the late 1800s Queen Victoria sent over Jacob Schiff to take over the United States economy.
The British City of London Oligarchy traces its roots back to the founding of the Bank of England in 1694, and before that to an alliance with the piratical financiers of post-Renaissance Genoa.
FatMeteor is a vulgar, squalid, sordid, somnolent, insipid, petty, vile, cruel, wicked, accursed tyrant, scoundrel, and a peddler of little boys. I tire of his dirty-tricks operations and gross man-handling of my nuts.
Zionism can best be illustrated by a big Star of David with Queen Elizabeth at the top spouting an Opium Pipe and flanked on one side by economist Milton Friedman (the latter being subject of The Ugly Truth About Milton Friedman.)
The "leading lights" of the Zionist lobby are traitors to their country (contemporary Benedict Arnolds)
Bertrand Russell is a bastard child of British radical empiricism and its French Restoration positivism, who, like all philosophical liberals, rejects any scientific distinction between man and Beast.
Through the ethnologists, sociologists, psychologists of Wundt, behaviorists, psychoanalysis, "Frankfurt School", London Tavistock Clinic and Tavistock Institute, humanity under the emerging world-empire of the United Nations Organisation is becoming a multicultural Zoo of filthy Animals.
British Fabian, Lord Bertrand Russell was an agent of MI5, who later chaired the CIA's Congress for Cultural Freedom beginning in 1950 with John Dewey, Bendetto Croce, and Sidney Hook.
The intention of the "Congress" as led by Sidney Hook, was to corrupt the culture, mores, and educational systems of Europe and the Americas.
I always respected Lord Russell. I am a practicing Roman Catholic with an undergraduate minor in philosophy and an advanced degree from Harvard. Lord Russell was an unbeliever, a self described agnostic. But he had none of the intellectual arrogance or vulgarity of the "neo atheists" e.g. Hitchens Harris of Dawkins. Therefore, his arguments against religion were more formidable. He was not shilling to the crowd. He respected his opponents position and he treated it seriously.
@trajan75: Personally I disagree that Sam Harris is very arrogant. A great example of this is his appearance on Nightline where he and Michael Shermer debated Deepak Chopra and...some crazy lady who enjoyed non sequitors. All four people are markedly different in their approach, but Shermer eggs Chopra on for the duration and insults him, whereas Harris is extremely patient and even-handed. Never once does he raise his voice or ridicule his opponents.
@InfernalApocalypse I think you are right about Harris. While he is not in the same league with Lord Russell as a thinker, it was wrong of me to lump him in with Dawkins and Hitchens.
@InfernalApocalypse I think you are right about Harris. While he is not in the same league with Lord Russell as a thinker, it was wrong of me to lump him in with Dawkins and Hitchens.
@trajan75: Dawkins can come off as arrogant, yes. I'm divided as to how I feel about him, to be honest. I agree with a lot of the ideas he posits in The God Delusion, and I enjoy his presentation (probably because I grew up with British comedy and like acerbic wit), but he can be vicious. Hitchens is the 'worst' of the bunch, but I think it's because he is passionate about morality. Unfortunately, he is not as well-schooled as he could be on world religions.
@trajan75 Not to be antagonistic, and you may be right about "shilling to the crowd", but to treat a position with seriousness, it must be a serious and well considered position in the first place. Those who demand respect for bronze age books merely because it's labelled "religion", and especially those who use such demands to always force others to their position with no burden to provide adequate reason, should indeed be ridiculed, IMO. "The holy book says so", is not a justifiable reason.
@engun1 I don't disagree with most of what you say. I certainly am not advocating the fundamentalist position, and there are a great number of atheist and agnostic thinkers of the first rank but if you're defending the approach of Dawkins or Hitchens I would differ strongly. I find their work to be arrogant, vulgar, intellectually lazy, and formally and materially defective from a logical point of view, and they're bullies always knocking down straw men. In fair debate they don't do so well.
@trajan75 I agree that Dawkins and Hitchens can be extremely abrasive. However, I don't find their arguments to be weak or defective, and would like to know why you think so. I also believe that people like that provide balance, by being a rallying point to drive back the fundamentalists. Someone has to take a stand against attempts to undermine science and politicize religion. If that were happening already, Dawkins and Hitchens would not be needed.
@engun1 Hard to do in 500 characters, but here goes:1) Undistributed middle, they cite examples of evil done in the name of religion and conclude that religion is bad. - formally defective argument.2) Begging the Question, when evil is attributed to atheists e.g. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. they argue that they aren't really atheists or acting for other motives but the same argument could be applied to religious bad actors 3) Red Herrings,Religious education is child abuse(Dawkins) etc. No more space
@trajan75 I agree. 500 is a killer. But a few counter-points.
1) They cite examples of evil arising *purely* due to religious belief, which is a valid case against religion.
2) The argument you raise is invalid I believe. Atheism is the absence of belief. Beyond that, it prescribes no dogma, such as say Communism. You might be an atheist with respect to Islam, should you take blame for Islam's evil? Blaming Stalin on atheists is like blaming a vegetarian for deforestation. To be contd...
@engun1 1) I know of no teaching of Christ that would lead to evil;2) Much evil has been done in Christ's name;3) Nevertheless, much more good: feeding the hungry. educating the poor and millions of acts of individual kindness have been done in his name 3) Atheism is a positive creed. I can point to a direct link between the words of militant atheists Marx, Nietzsche and countless acts of cruelty against believers in the Soviet Union, China. It clearly begs the question to argue as you do.
@trajan75 I think I understand where you come from. I also understand where Hitchens and Dawkins come from. I think there is definite middle ground to be found. Let me clarify my own perceptions. 1) About Christ - Christ was never the problem. Many would consider him a role model. However, Christianity is not limited to Christ's teachings is it? Let me take a similar example. The Buddha is a character worthy of emulation. But his teachings are now wrapped up in a religion, degrading the essence.
@engun1 I have no objection to people who take this approach although it is not mine. I think it is an area of common ground. Ethical Culture and Unitarianism approach the problem from this direction.
This gives rise to a question. Can we establish a humanistic religion where many admirable characters such as Jesus, the Buddha and even modern philosophers are included as role models? Would you be agreeable to replacing your religion with that? Presumably not. Which is where the argument that a religion is *not* limited to good moral teachings come in and where Dawkins' and Hitchens' criticisms become valid. Contd...
Respond to this video...I am pessimistic about that but it's not theoretically impossible. Evil men will use any means to obtain power including attaining high positions in the state religion. Dante, a profound Christian populates Hell with numerous high prelates of the Church including popes who are of that type but that is not a rejection of Christianity but an acknowledgement of sin. Dawkins and Hitchens have a valid point only to the extent that there is sin.
@trajan75 My own take on it is this: the church pretending to represent the will of the "creator" of this universe, which in itself has never been established, and then proceeding to issue edicts on his behalf *must* be exposed for the fraud it is. I have no opposition to a church organized around humanistic principles and would agree that it provides a means for a sense of community and an umbrella for social service. Contd...
@engun1 Which edicts are you referring to? There is of course fraud in all human enterprise secular and religious but I don't accept that the Church has committed doctrinal fraud.
@trajan75 I must disagree that atheism is a positive creed. Only gnostic atheism is a positive creed, whereas most atheists are agnostic. No set of beliefs other than a lack of belief in God need be espoused by an atheist. Anything beyond that is a view point of one's own and cannot be attributed in general to atheists. I do not subscribe to Communism for example. The same cannot be argued for say Christianity, as it comes in a specific package. Contd...
@engun1 There is no example of state sponsored atheism that did not entail persecution of religious people starting with exclusion from employment and ending in murder. Its not just Communism. Religion is an obstacle to an all encompassing state. Modern religions (except Islam) have slowly accepted the necessity for tolerance and now are its strongest advocates legal issues arise between free exercise and establishment of religion but these can be worked out in the courts.
@trajan75 Overall, we may be more in agreement than disagreement, and you appear to be a decent person who is considering these different issues and aspects seriously, rather than merely adhering to dogma. I would like to know your opinion on my proposal for more humanistic and scientific religions?
@engun1 I would be in your corner. Pluralism is the only alternative. No one creed or secular institution can be trusted to wield absolute power for in that case always "the wicked will bear it away."
@trajan75 Finally, they argue (both Hitchens and Dawkins) that, even if one can make a case for deism (which they don't find convincing, nor I for that matter), one has all one's work ahead to clarify how to move from deism to the specific theistic position that each creed claims is the absolute truth. A deistic god, even if one exists, is unlikely to be so petty as to concern oneself with the propitiations and genuflections of an evolved ape. I'm yet to see any convincing counter-argument.
@engun 4)Intellectual laziness. Setting up straw men and knocking them down. Dawkins attacks the Ontological Argument (so did St. Thomas Aquinas) but he fails to address the modern form of that argument made by Platinga. 5 Vulgarity Hitchens attacks Mother Theresa. OK. He titles his book "The Missionary Position"- contemptible. They don't really address the intelligibility of the Universe or the argument from contingency. No intelligent believer would have any trouble with their arguments.
4) The modern form of the argument does not differ in essence. As Russell puts it, all variations of the ontological argument boil down to a case of bad grammar and it's no different in Platinga's case. 5) Yes. It may be vulgarity but dismissing Hitchens on those grounds would be an ad-hominem argument, and therefore invalid. 6) Argument from contingency - Hitchens asks you to make a case from how one moves from deism to theism. No one has done that yet.
@engun1 The red herring is to link religious education to child abuse. We all know the recent scandal in the Catholic Church. The scandal was the cover up. I have some experience in the field. The percentage of abuse in public education is greater. Unfortunately pederasts enter the priesthood, become scout masters, teachers etc. because they have access to children. The numbers are small but the harm they do is great. Catholic School system did great good in the inner city including for me.
@engun1 I don't accept the ontological argument. Neither did Aquinas, but I don't believe that Dawkins was even aware of Platinga's argument which was somewhat novel. His failure to address it while ridiculing the argument is to my mind symptomatic of his intellectual laziness.
@engun1 As to Hitchens: Yes it was an ad hominem argument, but remember I wasn't attacking Atheism in general, I was attacking Hitchens personally. I am sorry to say this while he is fighting cancer but I found him to be a wretched person. Now that he is fighting so valiantly for his life I may change my mind. Many years ago someone I loved very dearly was in the same position. Ultimately, and after much suffering, she lost that fight. Perhaps Hitchens will win his.
@trajan75 But one last thing, since all my posts have raised counter-arguments, and hasn't mentioned what I'm in agreement with. I do believe that more "evolved" and benign versions of religion can have a positive effect in terms of social cohesion, but I do believe that this would be further enhanced by dissociation from the dogmatic aspects and embracement of religion as a means for social service. Of course, that may also be equivalent to asking for a secular non-god-believing church ;-)
@engun1 I regard you as a serious and decent person. They say during the French Revolution the master schemer Tallyrand was asked by a young zealot how one could found a religion based on reason. His reply: "Get yourself crucified and rise again on the third day"
welll great dudes but the 33rd degree ruling eltite of freemasons are using these ethics now there also creating the myth that jewish people are controlling it all an the media
well its an over used steroetype its clear to people of all faiths an non faiths the this world under a freemasonic agenda they built america from the start there symbols are all around washington , the white house,they built all the churches around the world look at the vatican , look at italys pm ,there satanists
Aqui hay una parte Quizas alguien pueda agregar el resto
"I do like clarity and exact thinking and believe that it is very important to mankind because when you allow yourself to think inexactly your prejudice is your biased... in ways that you do not notice and you do bad things without you knowing...self deception is easy"
@matiasm00 "your prejudices, your bias, your self interests comes in new ways you don't notice and you do bad thinks uknowing that you are doing them"
Si te permites pensar de forma inexacta, tus prejuicios, envidia y tus propios interses van por un camino del que no controlas, entoces cometerás malas acciones sin ser consciente.
No confundir exactitud con seguridad:
"Los problemas del mundo son pq los ignorantes están muy seguros de si mismos y los inteligentes siempre con dudas." B.Russell
"Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible."
"Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton."
-- Bertrand Russell, "The Impact of Science on Society", 1953
@mmtot Quotes out of context are the typical technique of lying pieces of crap! You don't even care what the truth is. Russell was not advocating that - he was describing the inevitable result of a society like the NAZIs. You don't even care what the truth is. All of your quote mining is sleazy and dishonest.
"Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible."
-- Bertrand Russell, "The Impact of Science on Society", 1953
You can check my comments all over YouTube and you will not find a single word or allusion that even remotely smacks of antiSemitism. Pointing out self-hating Jews, like yourself, says more about internalized oppression that it does about Jews. You accuse me of that the way Russell's detractors accused him of being pro-communist.
Is anything you say to be taken seriously? You're the one who has stated elsewhere that Ayn Rand's iron heel of the "ideal man" is the panacea of humankind. Rand was rational off the deep end, as when, for example, she said that motherhood is an acceptable vocation, providing the raising of children is done with "science" and without emotional indulgence.
Russell was ridiculously intelligent. He also had an incredibly interesting personality and charisma. Unfortunately, he wasn't a very nice man in his personal life. Neither was Einstein. Human beings are complex.
His anti-semitism was of the mild upper-class English variety. It was a form of snobbery. It is very important to recognise the subtleties here. He was no Nazi.
After this comment there is no point in arguing further. This is the most outrageous drivel you have uttered yet. When you develope Russell's thesis on methodical thinking, then we will talk, but the hopes for developing this method doesn't look promising.
There is a contradiction here. You uphold Paul Johnson as a muckraking icon, but he claims that Jesus is the wisest man who ever lived. I take Johnson with a grain of salt. It's hard to take seriously any conservative Catholic who rejects evolution, thinks the events in Genesis are literally true, who says that atheists use evolution to justify atheism (not true), and who says the Beatles were a danger to society. He also puts Nixon above Clinton in terms of moral caliber.
The most discriminated group would be homosexuals if there were some physical means by which they could be identified. Lot of blacks still feet frustrated in advancing in society; skin color is easily identifiable. As for Jews, they had the option of changing their names, such as the big moguls of Hollywood.
Russell placed Jesus on a high plane of moral goodness, but he placed him on a lower par than Socrates and the Buddha. I have a lesser view of Jesus than Russell had.
I don't think African-Americans are more antiSemitic. It's the loudmouths like Louis Farrakhan and an incident involving Al Sharpton who make so much noise. It indeed would be a shame if the black population forgot that Jews were at the forefront of the civil rights movement.
Russell had a tentative mindset. He held that being wrong on any given subject is nothing to be ashamed of, as long as the person holding the opinion is willing to modify his thinking in the face of new evidence. Russell thought black people inferior and that they should be relegated to manual labor. 20 years later he recanted this view. He made a complete about face.
In Verne's day, antiSemitism was rampant, not only in France, but all over Europe. The Dreyfuss Affair was an antiSemitic scandal, but it was also Frenchmen who had Dreyfuss vindicated. Almost all of the recent violent AntiSemitic incidents in France are from skinheads and Muslims.
The Communists were atheists and Russell was the first to acknowledge that they committed horrible acts that everyone deplores. But the Nazis were not atheists; in fact, their attempt at exterminating the Jews was, according the themselves, for the purpose of serving God. (At least that was the facile reason.) Russell was vociferous in his castigation of Nazi committed atrocities.
And, of course, his Theory of Descriptions is definitely one of the most beautiful pieces of philosophical analysis ever achieved, even if it doesn't quite withstand the Kripkean modal-logic.
Bertrand Russell could accurately be described as anti-semitic - but rather in the quiet, quite mild, snobby English way: he was no Nazi. But even A.J. Ayer wrote that he found Russell (even in later years) a bit of a racist (and remember Ayer was Bertrand's greatest fan). That was probably the least of Russell's (very many) personal failings.
However, we certainly shouldn't judge his mathematical work on that criterion. I love his principia mathematica.
Agreed. My childhood hero was Jules Verne. Later in life I discovered he was antiSemitic, but in a mild way. Needless to say, I was quite disappointed in learning this. However, that does not take away from his remarkable fecundity as an innovator who made science as magical as the Arabian Nights.
It is sometimes maintained that racial mixture is biologically undesirable. There is no evidence whatever for this view. Nor is there, apparently, any reason to think that Negroes are congenitally less intelligent than white people, but as to that it will be difficult to judge until they have equal scope and equally good social conditions.
-- Bertrand Russell, New Hopes for a Changing World (London: Allen & Unwin, 1951, p. 108)
very interesting video thanks
smuggecko 1 week ago
Take that postmodernists!
peoman2 4 weeks ago
i have my clearest and most exact thinking while '' high ''
bagoodtube 1 month ago
Like a BOSS!!!!!
MIAfishing1 1 month ago
continental philosophy pwns all. lol
TheDavid2222 1 month ago
@TheDavid2222
lol nothing gives me a rush like continental philosophy..no matter how much analytic philosophy gets everything cleared up and squared away...continental philosophers will always crawl out of the woodwork to ask hard hitting questions like "what is the purpose of a question" or "do my eyes exist when I blink"
FeelingFreshSon 3 weeks ago
@FeelingFreshSon Yeah man! They ask the relevant questions! lol They can be all emotional too. lol
TheDavid2222 3 weeks ago
@TheDavid2222
hey, for you and everybody else, I found this website
blip.tv/philosophy-unveiled
LOL it's not spam, it's some system based on MBTI that Lane Friesen made which explains why philosophical systems differ and how different philosophers perceived the world based on their mental structures...it's certainly interesting if nothing else.
FeelingFreshSon 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The man shows a robotic misunderstanding of Nietzsche. I don't trust Russel for it, and for that reason alone. If Nietzsche represented man's recovery from sickness, Russel never saw appreciated the sickness, which betrays something rather sinister...to me.
fredbloggs02 1 month ago
Comment removed
fredbloggs02 1 month ago
@theDeckisStacked furthermore, He was a man of self bias?no. No one can detatch all emotion and be completely objective, but relatively speaking he was very much the opposite of self biased. An athiest at that time, or even now, doesn't conform to religion even though it is in their social interest to do so.
karenmelissa002 2 months ago
@theDeckisStacked um,no. Reality is the set of things we know to be the case which is defined using logic,that includes probability. Probabilty is a part of logic. And quantum mechanic,really? Scapegoat. So we haven't figuered it out yet, so what? We will one day, using...wait for it...LOGIC. you know how I know this? that's how science works. logic is the method that humans use to understand the world, reality.
karenmelissa002 2 months ago
Comment removed
fredbloggs02 1 month ago
Comment removed
fredbloggs02 1 month ago
@karenmelissa002 I don't like the way Russel spoke of Nietzshe, who was right: the very essence of logic is absurd. Nature measuring itself is doomed to fall short. It is a paradox and a Christian one at that to presume as Socrates did "the only life worth living is the life examined." The paradox arises when you demand a man examine himself examining, to my mind, it betrays guilt at it's heart which Kierkegaard later drew out of it's tomb. Russel was simply his own experiences.
fredbloggs02 1 month ago
@MillionthUsername what exactly do u mean?
wisemant11 2 months ago
He claims that truth can only come from science but then spends most of his time uttering his own opinions and trying to pass them off as "true."
MillionthUsername 2 months ago
@MillionthUsername How little you truly understand.
IDidactI 2 months ago
Clarity and clear thinking are, at best, culturally, socially,or family, based.He was raised in what could be termed a privileged position in society, he did not have to have his head down and is arse up trying to provide for a family. He simply holds an opinion, same as anyone else. And it is not necessarily correct. Or wrong.
waiotahi52 2 months ago
We need more people like Bertrand Russell and less popes, priests, generals and televangelists. People who can think independently without religious demagogues telling them what to do. The answers lie within you. Bertrand is asking us to THINK more, Question more--like scientists and reasoning people. He is the real deal and is my hero.
windstorm1000 3 months ago
Analytic philosophy for the win!
craigpsimpson 3 months ago
THIS GUY HE IS A HERO HE SAFED US ALL FROM BEING STUPID =D
TheRealJeljo 3 months ago
@TheRealJeljo - Oop! Too late... I'm still stupid.
CaptainMacNasty 3 months ago
@TheRealJeljo Yes. He is one of the towering figures of this or any age.
windstorm1000 3 months ago
My parents were rabid Pentecostal Christians who did their best to indoctrinate me as a lad. However, one day I managed to smuggle in a book by BR - forget which one - and came across the most liberating phrase a youngster could hope to find which validated what I was already doing: 'question everything'. He was like breath of fresh air... not quite sure he seems that now.
zthetha 3 months ago
@zthetha Russell hasn't changed. Perhaps you have.
windstorm1000 3 months ago
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
*humankind
Bomberdoom 5 months ago
to all the youtube warriors who think that bertrand russell is a "tool", how many nobel prizes have you won? you all need to research "original thought". he was doing ground breaking things before your parents were born. brilliant people do brilliant things. the rest of us either agree or disagree with our limited intellect and understanding.
19gunslinger78 5 months ago
hmm think...clearly....got it! good thing i had my pen and paper or i might of missed this hidden gem of logic and rationality.
scar504 5 months ago
@scar504
Sadly you did miss the hidden gem of logic and rationality. It was stated plain and clear and yet it only went in one of your ears and out the other. This is backed up by the ignorance oozing out of your comment.
haimynames 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
@amosschorr93
and why is that?
JayKeaton 6 months ago
he is the ultimate "cool guy!"
zencat999 6 months ago
Todavia le gustaria el resto?
inkstersco 7 months ago
,,hello , i've quit smoking,,,,,,,,and there are many ways to express our self trough clarity,but always there's proximity,,,,,ex poetry and mathematics
winchestermentolatt 7 months ago
My question is, how does one reach clarity without first having experienced "inexact thinking"? Seriously, this man is a complete tool, and that is because he is so far immersed in his own ego that he has no apparent idea of the state of humanity (not to mention his advice on smoking). If he did he wouldn't be offering solutions to the complex nature of being with matter-of-fact ideas that "we all should find easy to follow". Life is clearly not that simple, and Mr. Russel died a long time ago.
stellasdaddyful 8 months ago
@stellasdaddyful Russell is advocating that people train their ability to think clearly about the facts of matters of their lives and the world, rather than just making assumptions based on guesses, dogma or misinformation, and you think he is a tool? Did you even understand what he said?
JayKeaton 7 months ago
@JayKeaton I wonder if you understood my original comment. Russell appears to be saying one is right and the other is wrong. I'm saying that one can't reach right unless they have experienced wrong. Check again and you will see what my point is instead of going off half-cocked and letting your thoughts be too emotionally charged. And yeah; he's a complete tool. Check out his advice on smoking - especially the part about how it "saved his life" - if you need any proof.
elismusicshow 7 months ago
@elismusicshow But someone can *be* right, without ever having been wrong. Someone can do something the *right* way, without ever having done it the wrong way, and they can understand why the reason they are doing it is right. This is not half-cocked, I fully understood what you are saying and I understood how you reached your conclusion, but you are not right. For some reason you are assuming that "being right" is something you can only do after "being wrong". But that is incorrect.
JayKeaton 7 months ago
@JayKeaton You make me laugh. Have you never heard of trial-by-error, the wisdom in the mistake, learning, etc.? It appears not. Thanks for the conversation, and best wishes in your untroubled world.
elismusicshow 7 months ago
@elismusicshow learning is exactly what Russell is advocating here. You said it is not possible to be right without first being wrong, I addressed that claim. Now you are implying that Russell is saying trial by error doesn't exist, or some such nonsense. Exact thinking is something he is saying should be applied to areas of life, you apply exact thinking to your trial and error, you apply exact thinking while considering your mistake etc. You, sir, seem to be the tool.
JayKeaton 7 months ago
@JayKeaton yeah, I am a tool, a working one. Cheers, and no hard feelings. Enjoy your day, or night, whatever the case may be.
elismusicshow 7 months ago
@elismusicshow If the tool you are is one that doesn't understand the wise words of a wise man, then yes, you are functioning correctly. A fully functional tool of ignorance.
JayKeaton 7 months ago
@JayKeaton Thanks again, I'm over it. See ya.
elismusicshow 7 months ago
I would give anything to smoke a pipe and have some tea with Lord Russell while talking Philosophy.
saltydog78 8 months ago
Fckin MADCUNT!
OhManTFE 9 months ago
perfect
TheAnarchist00 10 months ago
In many cases, as I have personally observed from Russell's works and statements, is that the brilliance of Russell lies in the honest simplicity of his statements.
People occasionally dismiss these statements due to their simplicity without realizing the profound implications they truly hold.
RJhasFLOW 10 months ago 75
@RJhasFLOW
I agree, when people talk about philosophy today in classes, it's like a group pleasuring itself with their own language that no one else understands, nor cares about. Bertrands philosophy is for the people - anyone watching, knows immediately what is meant. I think philosophy, perhaps combined with the intelligent wisdom of an old man, is much more appealing than talking about exisential philosophies of mind. lol
superhamzah85 7 months ago
@RJhasFLOW He's the anti-Derrida!
MrSmartypants 7 months ago
@RJhasFLOW Ya, I heard somewhere that Russel was a big fan of Occam's razor. Even before he had heard of it, he believed that the simpler the statement, the better.
soterios11 6 months ago
@RJhasFLOW very well said.
ABRARKHANISM 6 months ago
@RJhasFLOW
I found that in both Russell and Wittgenstein, that trend seems to hold true. Either people think you're wrong, or that its dead, damn obvious.
It irks the fuck out of me.
protossenslaver 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RJhasFLOW fuck religion, fuck meta-physics/philosophy, a lot of this is just food for thought for over-thinking intellects who need analytical stimuli to prevent depression/madness. Bertrand knew this.
jamafrican657 5 months ago
@RJhasFLOW : You know, one of my 'friends' at school told me that he knew [of] Bertrand Russell &c &c. But this 'friend' turned out to be one of the greatest liars and manipulative persons under the sun. A little like Russell in Russell's dismissive attitude, but totally unlike Russell in his downright nastiness.
MusicPredominates 3 months ago
It seems to me, a fundamental dishonesty, a fundamental treachery to intellectual integrity to hold a belief because you think it's useful, and not because you think it's true." B, Russell, 1959.
Darkenedblue01 2 months ago 3
@RJhasFLOW
Wow! What an amazingly thoughtless comment! The more we have to infer, the more a comment or line of reasoning is open to misinterpretation. Articulation, clarity and completing the reasoning with its supporting ideas is everything. That's where B.R. comes up very short of the mark.
andersoncouncilpf 1 month ago
@andersoncouncilpf
I agree, and It is rather obvious that Russel himself would agree with you to. It can be thoughtless to deduce or infer anything from this video alone for the man mightn't have explained his thinking as clearly as he wishes others to think.
grimslider75 1 month ago
I once tried to read the Principia Mathematica, but I gave up. It was over my head, and my hat is off to anyone who can understand it. A History of Western Philosophy is quite good and well written. That I hardily recommend. I don't entirely agree with Russell's atheism, but I do agree there is no afterlife. But it may not be "nonsense", as he dismisses it. As one sage said, "In this world anything may be possible." This is a strange place we inhabit. Nothing should be taken for granted.
finnemccool 11 months ago
There is a ridiculous canard that Russell supported eugenics. Read what he actually wrote! It is a demonstration of what is exactly wrong with eugenics. He says that any implementation of eugenics would lead to arbitrary governement determination of what types were 'undesirable' which would lead to tyranny Anyone claiming to be against eugenics can not deny the wisdom in Russell's views.
clarkanorak 11 months ago
What are you all connected by logic or something? No this is not good.
Resdim 1 year ago
@Resdim ?
RJhasFLOW 10 months ago
Bertie, Bertie Bertie......GET OUT THE CAB
fishybishbash 1 year ago
He makes a good point. Most corruption is unconscious - because most corruption is rationalised by just believing what you want to believe.
andrewada 1 year ago
"I'm going to take some types and some sets and some logical axioms and go ahead and make some hot shit, thanks Bertie" - Oppenheimer
Namely82 1 year ago
Ism Schism...
Whether you allow yourself to think exactly, or inexactly, it doesn't matter, your prejudices, you bias. your self-interest, comes in, in ways you don't notice, and you do bad things without knowing it. Self-deception is very easy
jackrowet1234 1 year ago
Why is it that straight men always make the worst philosophers?
RayL1983 1 year ago
@RayL1983 What the fuck are you talking about?
Chinchilla7Man 1 year ago 8
@Chinchilla7Man I don't think he could've put that more simply. For example the famous Contigo ergo sum "I think therefore I am" was probably not thought by descartes, but still holds profound implications if the person would've examined it more thoroughly
3200manpro 4 months ago
@RayL1983 This obviously says a lot about the nature of (professional) philosophy
qwertytrewq33333 8 months ago
Comment removed
RayL1983 1 year ago
Spanish translation for this video, PLEASE!!!!!
luisaraujodramaturgo 1 year ago
@luisaraujodramaturgo "Creo que el pensamiento exacto es muy importante para el ser humano, pq cuando uno se permite pensar inexactemente, los prejuicios y rencores van por caminos que no esperabas y entonces cometes malas acciones sin saber que las estas cometiendo, entonces es muy fácil decepcionarse a si mismo . Pienso que el pensamiento claro es inmensamente importante, pero creo que la filosofia antigua (supongo que se refiere a la filosofia classica) no es adequada para un mundo moderno."
mailhoax 1 year ago
@mailhoax Muchas gracias mailboax
luisaraujodramaturgo 1 year ago
@luisaraujodramaturgo Aún que no soy muy bueno en inglés te he traducido el video. En referencia a la filosofia classica, Russell siempre pensó que la filosofia classica no aporta soluciones, llegando a decir que Neitsche era más un literato que un filósofo, por citar a tantos personages en sus textos...
Creo que Russell se refiere al pensamiento empírico o demostrable.
Como decia Einstein: "la toeria es asesinada tarde o temprano por la experiéncia"
Eso es lo que yo entendí...
mailhoax 1 year ago
@luisaraujodramaturgo Resto Fácil No hay Dios. :)
maddtappin 1 year ago
I wish this piece were a bit longer...I'd like to know what he regards as the needs of the world...or how to apply exact thinking to constructive use. Still very interesting
AttilatheMike 1 year ago
Lord Bertrand Russell and Arthur Koestler were members of MI5.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
Zionism can best be illustrated by a big British flag with Queen Elizabeth at the top spouting an Opium Pipe and flanked on one side by economist, Milton Friedman. (The latter being subject of the Ugly Truth About Milton Friedman.)
The occultic symbol of the piratical Opium smuggling British East India Company is the Skull and Bones.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
The City of London Financial Oligarchy seized control of the Bank of England in 1694 and interbred with the filthy gentry. This private bank was founded by William Patterson, a Scottish Templar. This Oligarchy became primary shareholders in the British East India Company and looted Bengal India, the richest province in the world at that time through Standard Chartered Bank.
In the late 1800s Queen Victoria sent over Jacob Schiff to take over the United States economy.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
The "leading lights" of the Zionist lobby are traitors to their own country. (Contemporary Benedict Arnolds.)
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
The British City of London Oligarchy traces its roots back to the founding of the Bank of England in 1694, and before that to an alliance with the piratical financiers of post-Renaissance Genoa.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
FatMeteor is a vulgar, squalid, sordid, somnolent, insipid, petty, vile, cruel, wicked, accursed tyrant, scoundrel, and a peddler of little boys. I tire of his dirty-tricks operations and gross man-handling of my nuts.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
Comment removed
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
Comment removed
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
Comment removed
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Zionism can best be illustrated by a big Star of David with Queen Elizabeth at the top spouting an Opium Pipe and flanked on one side by economist Milton Friedman (the latter being subject of The Ugly Truth About Milton Friedman.)
The "leading lights" of the Zionist lobby are traitors to their country (contemporary Benedict Arnolds)
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
He was a filthy Beast who advocated drugs, promiscuity, and prepubescent sex.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
Bertrand Russell is a bastard child of British radical empiricism and its French Restoration positivism, who, like all philosophical liberals, rejects any scientific distinction between man and Beast.
Through the ethnologists, sociologists, psychologists of Wundt, behaviorists, psychoanalysis, "Frankfurt School", London Tavistock Clinic and Tavistock Institute, humanity under the emerging world-empire of the United Nations Organisation is becoming a multicultural Zoo of filthy Animals.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
@AnonymousWhitePerson are you caricaturing an idiotic position, or a caricature of an idiot?
fatmeteor 1 year ago 3
Comment removed
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
@fatmeteor,
Bertrand Russell is like a dainty morsel of food in the bowels which must be passed through the intestines like so much Feces.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
@AnonymousWhitePerson how ironic, since his mind would have chewed yours up and spat it out.
fatmeteor 1 year ago 2
@fatmeteor,
Wherefore are you defending this Eugenicist? Do you believe in sterilisation? How about perennial Incest and Depopulation?
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
@AnonymousWhitePerson sterilisation in your case would be acceptable to me
fatmeteor 1 year ago
British Fabian, Lord Bertrand Russell was an agent of MI5, who later chaired the CIA's Congress for Cultural Freedom beginning in 1950 with John Dewey, Bendetto Croce, and Sidney Hook.
The intention of the "Congress" as led by Sidney Hook, was to corrupt the culture, mores, and educational systems of Europe and the Americas.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
Comment removed
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
I always respected Lord Russell. I am a practicing Roman Catholic with an undergraduate minor in philosophy and an advanced degree from Harvard. Lord Russell was an unbeliever, a self described agnostic. But he had none of the intellectual arrogance or vulgarity of the "neo atheists" e.g. Hitchens Harris of Dawkins. Therefore, his arguments against religion were more formidable. He was not shilling to the crowd. He respected his opponents position and he treated it seriously.
trajan75 1 year ago
@trajan75: Personally I disagree that Sam Harris is very arrogant. A great example of this is his appearance on Nightline where he and Michael Shermer debated Deepak Chopra and...some crazy lady who enjoyed non sequitors. All four people are markedly different in their approach, but Shermer eggs Chopra on for the duration and insults him, whereas Harris is extremely patient and even-handed. Never once does he raise his voice or ridicule his opponents.
InfernalApocalypse 1 year ago
@InfernalApocalypse I think you are right about Harris. While he is not in the same league with Lord Russell as a thinker, it was wrong of me to lump him in with Dawkins and Hitchens.
trajan75 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@InfernalApocalypse I think you are right about Harris. While he is not in the same league with Lord Russell as a thinker, it was wrong of me to lump him in with Dawkins and Hitchens.
trajan75 1 year ago
@trajan75: Dawkins can come off as arrogant, yes. I'm divided as to how I feel about him, to be honest. I agree with a lot of the ideas he posits in The God Delusion, and I enjoy his presentation (probably because I grew up with British comedy and like acerbic wit), but he can be vicious. Hitchens is the 'worst' of the bunch, but I think it's because he is passionate about morality. Unfortunately, he is not as well-schooled as he could be on world religions.
InfernalApocalypse 1 year ago
@trajan75 Not to be antagonistic, and you may be right about "shilling to the crowd", but to treat a position with seriousness, it must be a serious and well considered position in the first place. Those who demand respect for bronze age books merely because it's labelled "religion", and especially those who use such demands to always force others to their position with no burden to provide adequate reason, should indeed be ridiculed, IMO. "The holy book says so", is not a justifiable reason.
engun1 1 year ago
@engun1 I don't disagree with most of what you say. I certainly am not advocating the fundamentalist position, and there are a great number of atheist and agnostic thinkers of the first rank but if you're defending the approach of Dawkins or Hitchens I would differ strongly. I find their work to be arrogant, vulgar, intellectually lazy, and formally and materially defective from a logical point of view, and they're bullies always knocking down straw men. In fair debate they don't do so well.
trajan75 1 year ago
@trajan75 I agree that Dawkins and Hitchens can be extremely abrasive. However, I don't find their arguments to be weak or defective, and would like to know why you think so. I also believe that people like that provide balance, by being a rallying point to drive back the fundamentalists. Someone has to take a stand against attempts to undermine science and politicize religion. If that were happening already, Dawkins and Hitchens would not be needed.
engun1 1 year ago
@engun1 Hard to do in 500 characters, but here goes:1) Undistributed middle, they cite examples of evil done in the name of religion and conclude that religion is bad. - formally defective argument.2) Begging the Question, when evil is attributed to atheists e.g. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. they argue that they aren't really atheists or acting for other motives but the same argument could be applied to religious bad actors 3) Red Herrings,Religious education is child abuse(Dawkins) etc. No more space
trajan75 1 year ago
@trajan75 I agree. 500 is a killer. But a few counter-points.
1) They cite examples of evil arising *purely* due to religious belief, which is a valid case against religion.
2) The argument you raise is invalid I believe. Atheism is the absence of belief. Beyond that, it prescribes no dogma, such as say Communism. You might be an atheist with respect to Islam, should you take blame for Islam's evil? Blaming Stalin on atheists is like blaming a vegetarian for deforestation. To be contd...
engun1 1 year ago
@engun1 1) I know of no teaching of Christ that would lead to evil;2) Much evil has been done in Christ's name;3) Nevertheless, much more good: feeding the hungry. educating the poor and millions of acts of individual kindness have been done in his name 3) Atheism is a positive creed. I can point to a direct link between the words of militant atheists Marx, Nietzsche and countless acts of cruelty against believers in the Soviet Union, China. It clearly begs the question to argue as you do.
trajan75 1 year ago
@trajan75 I think I understand where you come from. I also understand where Hitchens and Dawkins come from. I think there is definite middle ground to be found. Let me clarify my own perceptions. 1) About Christ - Christ was never the problem. Many would consider him a role model. However, Christianity is not limited to Christ's teachings is it? Let me take a similar example. The Buddha is a character worthy of emulation. But his teachings are now wrapped up in a religion, degrading the essence.
engun1 1 year ago
@engun1 I have no objection to people who take this approach although it is not mine. I think it is an area of common ground. Ethical Culture and Unitarianism approach the problem from this direction.
trajan75 1 year ago
@trajan75 Contd...
This gives rise to a question. Can we establish a humanistic religion where many admirable characters such as Jesus, the Buddha and even modern philosophers are included as role models? Would you be agreeable to replacing your religion with that? Presumably not. Which is where the argument that a religion is *not* limited to good moral teachings come in and where Dawkins' and Hitchens' criticisms become valid. Contd...
engun1 1 year ago
Respond to this video...I am pessimistic about that but it's not theoretically impossible. Evil men will use any means to obtain power including attaining high positions in the state religion. Dante, a profound Christian populates Hell with numerous high prelates of the Church including popes who are of that type but that is not a rejection of Christianity but an acknowledgement of sin. Dawkins and Hitchens have a valid point only to the extent that there is sin.
trajan75 1 year ago
@trajan75 My own take on it is this: the church pretending to represent the will of the "creator" of this universe, which in itself has never been established, and then proceeding to issue edicts on his behalf *must* be exposed for the fraud it is. I have no opposition to a church organized around humanistic principles and would agree that it provides a means for a sense of community and an umbrella for social service. Contd...
engun1 1 year ago
@engun1 Which edicts are you referring to? There is of course fraud in all human enterprise secular and religious but I don't accept that the Church has committed doctrinal fraud.
trajan75 1 year ago
@trajan75 I must disagree that atheism is a positive creed. Only gnostic atheism is a positive creed, whereas most atheists are agnostic. No set of beliefs other than a lack of belief in God need be espoused by an atheist. Anything beyond that is a view point of one's own and cannot be attributed in general to atheists. I do not subscribe to Communism for example. The same cannot be argued for say Christianity, as it comes in a specific package. Contd...
engun1 1 year ago
@engun1 There is no example of state sponsored atheism that did not entail persecution of religious people starting with exclusion from employment and ending in murder. Its not just Communism. Religion is an obstacle to an all encompassing state. Modern religions (except Islam) have slowly accepted the necessity for tolerance and now are its strongest advocates legal issues arise between free exercise and establishment of religion but these can be worked out in the courts.
trajan75 1 year ago
@trajan75 Overall, we may be more in agreement than disagreement, and you appear to be a decent person who is considering these different issues and aspects seriously, rather than merely adhering to dogma. I would like to know your opinion on my proposal for more humanistic and scientific religions?
engun1 1 year ago
@engun1 I would be in your corner. Pluralism is the only alternative. No one creed or secular institution can be trusted to wield absolute power for in that case always "the wicked will bear it away."
trajan75 1 year ago
@trajan75 Finally, they argue (both Hitchens and Dawkins) that, even if one can make a case for deism (which they don't find convincing, nor I for that matter), one has all one's work ahead to clarify how to move from deism to the specific theistic position that each creed claims is the absolute truth. A deistic god, even if one exists, is unlikely to be so petty as to concern oneself with the propitiations and genuflections of an evolved ape. I'm yet to see any convincing counter-argument.
engun1 1 year ago
@engun 4)Intellectual laziness. Setting up straw men and knocking them down. Dawkins attacks the Ontological Argument (so did St. Thomas Aquinas) but he fails to address the modern form of that argument made by Platinga. 5 Vulgarity Hitchens attacks Mother Theresa. OK. He titles his book "The Missionary Position"- contemptible. They don't really address the intelligibility of the Universe or the argument from contingency. No intelligent believer would have any trouble with their arguments.
trajan75 1 year ago
@trajan75 3) Why is it a red herring?
4) The modern form of the argument does not differ in essence. As Russell puts it, all variations of the ontological argument boil down to a case of bad grammar and it's no different in Platinga's case. 5) Yes. It may be vulgarity but dismissing Hitchens on those grounds would be an ad-hominem argument, and therefore invalid. 6) Argument from contingency - Hitchens asks you to make a case from how one moves from deism to theism. No one has done that yet.
engun1 1 year ago
@engun1 The red herring is to link religious education to child abuse. We all know the recent scandal in the Catholic Church. The scandal was the cover up. I have some experience in the field. The percentage of abuse in public education is greater. Unfortunately pederasts enter the priesthood, become scout masters, teachers etc. because they have access to children. The numbers are small but the harm they do is great. Catholic School system did great good in the inner city including for me.
trajan75 1 year ago
@engun1 I don't accept the ontological argument. Neither did Aquinas, but I don't believe that Dawkins was even aware of Platinga's argument which was somewhat novel. His failure to address it while ridiculing the argument is to my mind symptomatic of his intellectual laziness.
trajan75 1 year ago
@engun1 As to Hitchens: Yes it was an ad hominem argument, but remember I wasn't attacking Atheism in general, I was attacking Hitchens personally. I am sorry to say this while he is fighting cancer but I found him to be a wretched person. Now that he is fighting so valiantly for his life I may change my mind. Many years ago someone I loved very dearly was in the same position. Ultimately, and after much suffering, she lost that fight. Perhaps Hitchens will win his.
trajan75 1 year ago
@trajan75 But one last thing, since all my posts have raised counter-arguments, and hasn't mentioned what I'm in agreement with. I do believe that more "evolved" and benign versions of religion can have a positive effect in terms of social cohesion, but I do believe that this would be further enhanced by dissociation from the dogmatic aspects and embracement of religion as a means for social service. Of course, that may also be equivalent to asking for a secular non-god-believing church ;-)
engun1 1 year ago
@engun1 I regard you as a serious and decent person. They say during the French Revolution the master schemer Tallyrand was asked by a young zealot how one could found a religion based on reason. His reply: "Get yourself crucified and rise again on the third day"
trajan75 1 year ago
Russell, truly a brilliant man.
Raford146 1 year ago 105
BUT I DO LIKE NAKED BITCHES AND PUSSIES
turkaskeri0 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
welll great dudes but the 33rd degree ruling eltite of freemasons are using these ethics now there also creating the myth that jewish people are controlling it all an the media
well its an over used steroetype its clear to people of all faiths an non faiths the this world under a freemasonic agenda they built america from the start there symbols are all around washington , the white house,they built all the churches around the world look at the vatican , look at italys pm ,there satanists
beingPOISONED 2 years ago
@beingPOISONED,
Sadly, you and I are probably not going to talk reason into this forum of obsequious Bertrand Russell Sycophants.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
Comment removed
amigainspired 2 years ago
Aqui hay una parte Quizas alguien pueda agregar el resto
"I do like clarity and exact thinking and believe that it is very important to mankind because when you allow yourself to think inexactly your prejudice is your biased... in ways that you do not notice and you do bad things without you knowing...self deception is easy"
matiasm00 2 years ago 10
Thank you very much! ;-)
amigainspired 2 years ago
@matiasm00 "your prejudices, your bias, your self interests comes in new ways you don't notice and you do bad thinks uknowing that you are doing them"
Si te permites pensar de forma inexacta, tus prejuicios, envidia y tus propios interses van por un camino del que no controlas, entoces cometerás malas acciones sin ser consciente.
No confundir exactitud con seguridad:
"Los problemas del mundo son pq los ignorantes están muy seguros de si mismos y los inteligentes siempre con dudas." B.Russell
mailhoax 9 months ago
"Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible."
Bertrand Russell 1953
beingPOISONED 2 years ago
The human cattle do no want to here about how this guy was a scum bag !
mmtot 2 years ago
QFT
NewAristocracy 1 year ago
"Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton."
-- Bertrand Russell, "The Impact of Science on Society", 1953
mmtot 2 years ago
@mmtot Quotes out of context are the typical technique of lying pieces of crap! You don't even care what the truth is. Russell was not advocating that - he was describing the inevitable result of a society like the NAZIs. You don't even care what the truth is. All of your quote mining is sleazy and dishonest.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
"Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible."
-- Bertrand Russell, "The Impact of Science on Society", 1953
mmtot 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
he is a bullshitter!
MrDouglasfairbanks 2 years ago
Yes, but so are we all, as soon as we open our mouths
indigoba 2 years ago
In remembering Richard Burton, the explorer, one must be careful not to neglect Dora, the Explorer.
AnonymousWhitePerson 2 years ago
you sir are awesome.
blueddha 2 years ago 2
scum
PresidentRonPaul 4 years ago
terribly sorry for double posting, i was replying to someone who accused this great man of racism.
cfoc 4 years ago
well posted!
meganada 4 years ago
material and energy
amarbleinspace 4 years ago
His is voice squeaky because of the tape?
ramsmenon 4 years ago
Russell was a very stimulating writer, but his voice was indeed somewhat annoying.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
I thought he sounds like Gandhi in old recordings
ramsmenon 4 years ago
LOL Now that you mention it....
He sounds a little like H. G. Wells too.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
You do more to promote antiSemitism than I could possibly dream of.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
Just the kind of responses I expected...moronic.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
You can check my comments all over YouTube and you will not find a single word or allusion that even remotely smacks of antiSemitism. Pointing out self-hating Jews, like yourself, says more about internalized oppression that it does about Jews. You accuse me of that the way Russell's detractors accused him of being pro-communist.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
Is anything you say to be taken seriously? You're the one who has stated elsewhere that Ayn Rand's iron heel of the "ideal man" is the panacea of humankind. Rand was rational off the deep end, as when, for example, she said that motherhood is an acceptable vocation, providing the raising of children is done with "science" and without emotional indulgence.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
Poor JTB. He see an antiSemite inside every closet and under every mattress. Methinks thou art more than just slightly paranoid.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
Russell was ridiculously intelligent. He also had an incredibly interesting personality and charisma. Unfortunately, he wasn't a very nice man in his personal life. Neither was Einstein. Human beings are complex.
His anti-semitism was of the mild upper-class English variety. It was a form of snobbery. It is very important to recognise the subtleties here. He was no Nazi.
Alessandro1985 4 years ago
After this comment there is no point in arguing further. This is the most outrageous drivel you have uttered yet. When you develope Russell's thesis on methodical thinking, then we will talk, but the hopes for developing this method doesn't look promising.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
There is a contradiction here. You uphold Paul Johnson as a muckraking icon, but he claims that Jesus is the wisest man who ever lived. I take Johnson with a grain of salt. It's hard to take seriously any conservative Catholic who rejects evolution, thinks the events in Genesis are literally true, who says that atheists use evolution to justify atheism (not true), and who says the Beatles were a danger to society. He also puts Nixon above Clinton in terms of moral caliber.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
The most discriminated group would be homosexuals if there were some physical means by which they could be identified. Lot of blacks still feet frustrated in advancing in society; skin color is easily identifiable. As for Jews, they had the option of changing their names, such as the big moguls of Hollywood.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
Russell placed Jesus on a high plane of moral goodness, but he placed him on a lower par than Socrates and the Buddha. I have a lesser view of Jesus than Russell had.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
I don't think African-Americans are more antiSemitic. It's the loudmouths like Louis Farrakhan and an incident involving Al Sharpton who make so much noise. It indeed would be a shame if the black population forgot that Jews were at the forefront of the civil rights movement.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
No he didn't. He pronounced Christianity until the day he died. It's in his own statements.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
Russell had a tentative mindset. He held that being wrong on any given subject is nothing to be ashamed of, as long as the person holding the opinion is willing to modify his thinking in the face of new evidence. Russell thought black people inferior and that they should be relegated to manual labor. 20 years later he recanted this view. He made a complete about face.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
In Verne's day, antiSemitism was rampant, not only in France, but all over Europe. The Dreyfuss Affair was an antiSemitic scandal, but it was also Frenchmen who had Dreyfuss vindicated. Almost all of the recent violent AntiSemitic incidents in France are from skinheads and Muslims.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
The Communists were atheists and Russell was the first to acknowledge that they committed horrible acts that everyone deplores. But the Nazis were not atheists; in fact, their attempt at exterminating the Jews was, according the themselves, for the purpose of serving God. (At least that was the facile reason.) Russell was vociferous in his castigation of Nazi committed atrocities.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
And, of course, his Theory of Descriptions is definitely one of the most beautiful pieces of philosophical analysis ever achieved, even if it doesn't quite withstand the Kripkean modal-logic.
Alessandro1985 5 years ago
Bertrand Russell could accurately be described as anti-semitic - but rather in the quiet, quite mild, snobby English way: he was no Nazi. But even A.J. Ayer wrote that he found Russell (even in later years) a bit of a racist (and remember Ayer was Bertrand's greatest fan). That was probably the least of Russell's (very many) personal failings.
However, we certainly shouldn't judge his mathematical work on that criterion. I love his principia mathematica.
Alessandro1985 5 years ago
Agreed. My childhood hero was Jules Verne. Later in life I discovered he was antiSemitic, but in a mild way. Needless to say, I was quite disappointed in learning this. However, that does not take away from his remarkable fecundity as an innovator who made science as magical as the Arabian Nights.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
It is sometimes maintained that racial mixture is biologically undesirable. There is no evidence whatever for this view. Nor is there, apparently, any reason to think that Negroes are congenitally less intelligent than white people, but as to that it will be difficult to judge until they have equal scope and equally good social conditions.
-- Bertrand Russell, New Hopes for a Changing World (London: Allen & Unwin, 1951, p. 108)
cfoc 4 years ago 99
@cfoc jimi hendrix. nuff said.
t1mel1ne 1 year ago