/lit/ - Literature

filtered

>>17842551
>Analitic philosopher
Did it ever existed a more pseud branch of study? It's basically for failed mathematicians who want to LARP as philosophers

>>17842569
What do you think specifically of C.S. Peirce, Whitehead, Wittgenstein and Quine respectively?

>>17842569
>Let no man enter here who is ignorant of geometry

>>17842593
>Peirce
>Analytic

>>17842551
>reading bertrand reddit

Almost everyone, especially philosophy students, agree that this book is bad and Russel misinterprets most of the philosophers in the western canon. It's less of a history of philosophy and more of a collection of Russel's retarded hot takes.

>>17842596
>failed mathematicians

>>17842569

>>17842702
I didn't say he was, I just want to know your opinions on him.

>/lit/ now defends heidegger

>>17842795
always did

seethe more McContinental faggot
>>17842738
>philosophy students
the most worthless group in the world for philosophy opinions

>>17842804
I've been calling Heidegger a pseud cuck for as long as I've been here

>>17842824
Seething jew/anglo

>>17842551
this
go read copleston

>>17842811
Literally nobody likes it though, and Russel drank onions anyway so I don't see why anyone would defend this bowel movement.

>>17842829
No, skip Heidegger and go straight to Mein Kampf

>>17842551
Don't even know who that guy is, but there is no such thing as "western philosophy" because there's no "west" to begin it

>>17842824
This. He was a careerist hack. Read Husserl instead.

>>17842804
How did he do it bros? He's so happy in this picture

>>17842551
>Waaaah mommy, someone said something I don't agree with

>>17842795
I will never stop hating that cunt for what he did to my heckin Husserlino.
>>17842829
Heidegger is the most Jewish non-Jew philosopher ever, and he got to where he was by backstabbing the most non-Jewish Jew ever.

>>17843366
>backstabbing
Not really, you're just being dramatic

>>17843621
His entire works got scattered away into monasteries because they were deemed "jewish science". If the Catholics still have near exclusive access to about 80% of it, it is specifically because Heidi didn't understand what the fuck was going on and just saw a way to advance his career.

>>17843634
Oh so Heidegger himself shuffled away Husserl's works? No. You're interpreting philosophers from some Hollywood narrative, where one has to be a slighted underdog for whatever reason.

Pretty sure Russell isn't a "littl reddit fedora tipper"
Just read more books m8

>>17843680
Not in his papers, but in the rest of his works, yes.

>>17843680
pretty sure russell is a cumbrain humanist

>>17842551
So this was your takeaway? Interesting.

>>17842551
Anthony Kenny's is better.

>>17842551
I absolutely despise Bertrand Russel. He is one of the worst men who ever lived.

>>17842569
ANAL-licker philosophy cucks are an abomination

>>17843680
Yeah he is. Dude was an unironic intellectual sponsor of the real life Brave New World project currently underway.

Living philosophy focused on real people, events, institutions, traditions and literary forms

>>17843823
>>17842551
Dead, stale philosophy focused on "ideas"

>>17842804
Cutie pie <3

>According to Smythies, however, the book embodied all the ‘worst features’ of Russell’s journalism – ‘shoddiness of thought’, ‘sleek prose’ and ‘easy short-cuts to judgements on serious matters’. Russell had simplified his task by playing along with a common misconception about philosophy: that it deals in ‘theories’ designed, as in the natural sciences, to reflect the facts of experience, and that it progresses towards truth by collecting facts and finding better ways of representing them. This assumption allowed Russell to adopt his ‘lofty manner’, looking down on the ‘great men’ of the past and treating their ideas as ‘something left behind by “modern science”’. The impression he gave was that (thanks to him) all problems had now been solved, but that the solutions were ‘of too advanced a nature to be presented to the general reader’, who was therefore obliged to conclude that ‘it would all be quite clear to me if I knew as much about these things as Lord Russell.’

>Sometimes Russell’s loftiness declined into ‘facetiousness’. He made fun of the biblical Jews, who were willing to die for the sake of a belief in ‘circumcision and the wickedness of eating pork’ – but, as Smythies observed he never asked himself the question, ‘what is it like to believe what a Jew of that time believed?’ He also stated that the idea of ‘self’ or ‘subject’ had been ‘banished’ by Hume – an ‘important advance’, apparently, because it meant ‘abolishing all supposed knowledge of the “soul”’, thus destroying one of the pillars of religion and metaphysics. But he could not explain what the ‘important advance’ consisted in: what had ‘the idea of the self’ meant before it was ‘banished’, Smythies asked, and in any case ‘how can one know what the idea of the self is which one can’t have, unless one has that idea?’

>The main point was that Russell was incapable of giving weight, depth or colour to ideas that differed from his own: his book was a massive monologue, without variety of voices or plurality of points of view. His summaries of the great philosophers made them all look ‘faintly absurd’ – either ridiculous like Pythagoras, or dishonest like Plato, or insane like the German idealists and Nietzsche – and he made no attempt to explain what they might have meant to those who found them life-changingly significant. Philosophical differences were erased, and the resulting narrative was stale, flat, barren and uninteresting. ‘People’s lives and ideas, served up in this way, become unattractive and insipid,’ as Smythies put it; and ‘the most positive taste one gets … is that of Lord Russell’s prose (which has a tinny, flat quality peculiar to itself)’. Wittgenstein could not disagree: ‘have read your review,’ he told Smythies, ‘and it isn’t bad’.”