Lord Bertrand Russell Discusses Philosophy (1960)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 жов 2015
- Bertrand Russell Discusses Philosophy
Bertrand Russell (18 May 1872 -- 2 February 1970) interview with Woodrow Wyatt 1960.
Philosophy as the study of the unknown, a sort of pre-science.
The importance of moral philosophy
A criticism of linguistic philosophy
A criticism of continental philosophy
The importance of uncertainty
The future of philosophy
"If you're certain, you're certainly wrong"
What a quote
88 yrs old for this interview and sharp as a tac...
Some 40 years ago I was sitting late in an Irish University thinking only of my imminent expulsion from the library at 10pm, my hurried walk to the station which would enable me go catch a train to my digs on the coast on the way to which I would pass surruptitiously into a bar for the inevitable 'lock in', assuming that the local Royal Ulster Constabulary were elsewhere engaged. Whilst musing on the pleasant inevitability of this perigrination my eyes happened to fall on a nearby bookshelf containing some works of Russell. I dipped in and dipped out again around a week later placing my reading schedule which included several continental phenomenologists in a certain amount of peril. I have never regretted this accidental diversion. As to Winchester I have yet to visit there via either the shortest or any other route for that matter.
Studying Russell's work is a great introduction to philosophy, I think -- a gateway to logic, Wittgenstein, Moore, Plato, Aristotle, Austin and ordinary language, etc.
I am a liar. This statement is true
He was one of the greatest men in the world!
So fortunate to have him for nearly 100 years. But wish there was far more audio and video.
Love the man. What a wonderful person.
Always curious and alive and often well founded.
Still relevant.
Will always be so.
Smartest man.
Winchester? Eye. Lol.. But what an amazi g guy. He reminds me of my grandad. Born in 1904. Lived in to his 80 th year. OK. A bit younger than Bertrand. But just as, Organic, natural, confident and witty as him. Highly intelligent, too.
Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS (18 May 1872 - 2 February 1970) was an Welsh philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, writer, social critic, political activist and Nobel laureate.
At various points in his life he considered himself a liberal, a socialist, and a pacifist, but he also admitted that he had "never been any of these things, in any profound sense".
He was born in Monmouthshire into one of the most prominent aristocratic families in the United Kingdom.
In the early 20th century, Russell led the British "revolt against idealism".
He is considered one of the founders of analytic philosophy along with his predecessor Gottlob Frege, colleague G. E. Moore, and his protégé Ludwig Wittgenstein.
He is widely held to be one of the 20th century's premier logicians.
With A. N. Whitehead he wrote Principia Mathematica, an attempt to create a logical basis for mathematics.
His philosophical essay "On Denoting" has been considered a "paradigm of philosophy".
His work has had a considerable influence on logic, mathematics, set theory, linguistics, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, computer science, and philosophy, especially the philosophy of language, epistemology, and metaphysics.
Russell was a prominent anti-war activist; he championed anti-imperialism and went to prison for his pacifism during World War I.
Later, he campaigned against Adolf Hitler, then criticised Stalinist totalitarianism, attacked the involvement of the United States in the Vietnam War, and was an outspoken proponent of nuclear disarmament.
In 1950 Russell 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".
Great and noble man. I especially love the slight smirk on his face which suggest good humour despite everything. I totally disagree with the idea that philosophy is about getting the meaning of the questions clear as opposed to providing answers. That kind of agnosticism is sheer useless prattle among living and fighting human beings. We need answers, even provisional or half-baked answers. A philosophy that is effectively a deceleration of proud ignorance is useless and futile confronted with every assured irrationality, especially the religions.
'If you're certain, you're certainly wrong. Because nothing is certain.' Of course this is a paradoxical platitude. Kind of embarrassing for a professor of logic. If you were certain of that, you would be certain of something: the idea contains it's own refutation; it's a logical and practical absurdity, a sort of cowardly and comfortable cop-out.
The best logical argument for truth per se is that you cannot deny it without denying your denial. 'There is no such thing as truth,' is obviously a statement that contains it's own refutation. Truth per se is basically the primary thing you cannot refute logically. The non-existence of truth is like a square circle. There is no philosophy or even the most basic epistemology and ontology without the the basic reality that being and truth are.
I wonder what made Descartes doubt his own existence in the first place, Ishmael Forester? I have never had this experience.
I took him to be making a point, but joking, Ishmael Forester.
Since my seventeen I'm secular, I was carrying with me liberal ideas from that age until I know that I'm a liberal. At 17 I used to say I don't accept any religious and dogmatic explanation of the world just with the use of my mind I understand the world. So, using your mind is using what you're disposed thoughts, my mind is limited to understand the world. However, I learn that I know, that I know nothing. Human knowledge is worth of nothing.
I learnt that I shouldn't be certain about anything, because nothing is worth certainty.
You sound very certain that you shouldn't be certain about anything. A bit self-convicting, is it not?
And the "I"?
I drink, therefore i am in a superposition of existence 🤪
Freeing oneself from dogma is like removing the shackles from ones mind. I'm happy for you sir, cheers!
This is a famous quotation from Socrates. There's no point in questioning the commentator about it.
The only thing certain is uncertainty.
6:34 you can tell the interviewer isn't listening to his answers and not asking questions based on what he hears. This was a time for a follow-up question on the logical complement of analysis, which is synthesis, and how it ties it into learning by induction, Keynes's point of emphasis, which the collegiate study of logic has traditionally slighted in favor of Aristotle's influence over Francis Bacon's, and so on. That is the important issue. Also, ask him if Wittgenstein ever told him he was a 'logical atomist' too, for a time, before rejecting the dichotomy as flawed in PI #47 and elsewhere. Those are the interesting things to know. You are talking to the only living person who knew Wittgenstein well, and daily, back in 1913-4. Take advantage of it, silly.
Although Russell's answers were genuine and spontaneous, this production was tightly scripted and edited for clarity and succinctness. It wasn't about the nobody interviewer, unlike today so often.
Also, this piece wasn't intended for Philosophy majors. It was intended for general audiences as a brief theatre intermission piece or a short television interlude between full length programs.
Mathematical propositions dont explain hate jealousy or murder or the destructive tendency of destruction.
Of course you can. Math is an excellent predictor of these outcomes.
@@SilentStrife age is a number really, numbers don't age.
How high a man can reach in wisdom!? 😶
What ever happened to the wise people on our little planet?
The voice of the dumb masses inevitably drown out the thoughtful few. Thanks, social media.
Bertrand Russell is to philosophy what Joesph Campbell was to mythology… they both made very complex and often esoteric material understandable.
The way people were speaking in medieval times is extraordinary.
medieval lmao
I think the only reason people click on videos anymore is to make dumb jokes in the comment section.
@@profd65 That's the reason I do it. Don't know about other people.
God bless you, Lord Russell - if God exists that is 😂😂😂
I am totally mystified: 13+ minutes of two people in conversation, and not a single attempt at a ‘selfie’ 🤳 !
Eat your heart out William Shatner!
Russell seems like a swell dude
Just his spoking
‘’Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy… It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fitche laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished. Diet, injections(vaccines) and injunctions will combine, from 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
He wants to Bring about the New World Order and make the world into 1984. Wake Up!
He's Controlled Op.
Still Gives A lot of Good Advice though.....
Not math
English
Philosophy is merely incomplete science
What a very non-scientific but highly philosophical statement!
Science in fact is not even incomplete philosophy. Today’s scientists are so negligent and dishonest they wouldn’t even be allowed to sit 11+ philosophy
@@xxgg55 this comment radiates self-righteous pomposity like an old woman’s bedroom radiates the stink of urine vomit and faeces. With no knowledge or understanding of philosophy you attempt to define its function. Worst of all you apply the limitations of your own intelligence to everyone else: why don’t you just shut up?
@@xxgg55 Raising a kid is really hard especially since most parents never reakly matured themselves, once a section of philosophy is "finishes" as in well understood and agreed upon we call it science that's not up for debate, as for your idea that brain patterns are hard to analyse or that experience is hard to correlate with brain patterns; that's a common misconception, actually machine learning scientists tackle these types of problems everyday (just today for example I made a cyclic gan with the help of a collegue for a company which does almost exactly what you described) as for animal brains not being designed to be scanned easily that's a very small rock to hide behind and certainly not a convincing argument, in fact all information which affects our lives is by its very definition knowable, only facts which dont actually affect us in any meaningful way will remain unknown. Thanks for a lovely written question! Have a nice day.
if only modern philosophers would recognise that truth…
Russel's knowledge of ancient philosophy stretches no farther than Greece that makes his remarks with respect to specified topics such as atom somewhat self-limiting. The man appears to be devoid of learning!
Maybe you're not so keen on him as his grandfather ruled India and the Empire?
Nerds