[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 50 KB, 220x326, 220px-Bertrand_Russell_transparent_bg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11553837 No.11553837 [Reply] [Original]

>Below quote is from the Catholic philosophy section in the History of Western Philosophy
>"The defects of the scholastic method are those that inevitably result from laying stress on 'dialectic'. These defects are: indifference to facts and science, belief in reasoning in matters which only observation can decide, and an undue emphasis on verbal distinctions and subtleties."

What DID he mean by this? I'd also post quotes from his Henri Bergson section but all Russell does is abuse him for being a sneaky continental charlatan. There are too many quotes to post.

>> No.11553846

>>11553837
We’ve been telling you for years now not to read that book, it’s a disgrace to philosophy and an embarrassment to Russell.

>> No.11553901

>>11553837
>catholic
fuck off christboi

>> No.11553922

>>11553846

Not that guy but the quote taken by itself seems to be completely reasonable and only entices me to read the History. Something tells me that /lit/'s Russell hatred is all fashion and no substance - in a word, "continental".

>> No.11553929

>>11553922
If you believe in the "continental" dinstinction (and take seriously empty appeals to "facts and science") then you deserve Russell

>> No.11554431

>>11553929

On the contrary, I'm happy to discuss squishy philosophical things. Where I correctly smell bullshit in you is your /dismissal/ of "facts and science", which you felt obliged to do in that post.

>> No.11554438

>>11553929

And no, it isn't true that you didn't rhetorically dismiss "facts and science" as-such in the post which you wrote, so don't even bother trying to walk it back. You wrote what you wrote and you are obliged to start from there, go.

>> No.11555870

>>11553837
He is trying to say he is a logical positivist who doesn't think metaphysics can be expressed in words and has also never acturally tried to understand scholasticism.

>> No.11555885 [DELETED] 
File: 64 KB, 699x244, 1404670220761.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11555885

He's a dumb materialist pseud.

>> No.11555887
File: 64 KB, 699x244, 1404670220761.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11555887

>> No.11555967

The scientific method was born out of Scholasticism.

>> No.11555983

>>11554431

Not that guy, but note "empty appeals" to facts and science, which, in the context of what is quoted, is true. I've never read Russel's history, and I never will. My time is precious, and he is a profoundly uncharitable reader of the ideas of others.

Copleston's history of philosophy is unanimously considered the gold standard.

>> No.11556376

>>11553929
>If you believe in the "continental" dinstinction
It's a pretty valid stylistic distinction; that tradition could be pretty accurately defined by its performative intellectualism than anything else.1

>> No.11556670

>>11553837

Him smirking like a queef-guzzling gnome is the icying on the cringe cake.

>> No.11556675

>>11556376
>performative intellectualism
You sound like a Cunty

>> No.11556676

>>11556670

What about his mathematics degree from Cambridge? Lmao at brainlets

>> No.11556780

Nietzsche warned us ahead of time that reductionist charlatans like Russell would be in his future.

Russell knew his ilk were being called out by the moustached one which is why he shitposted on Nietzsche extra hard in his worthless philosophy history book.

>> No.11556817

>>11556675
It's the best way to describe their stylistic tendencies.

>> No.11556845

>>11556780
>yes, nietzsche would've sided with the catholics on this one lads. aren't i smart?
his whole shtick was rebutting metaphysics and christian ethics.

>> No.11556884

>>11556845
Are you fucked in the head? Nietzsche wrote in no uncertain terms against both religious purveyors of otherworldliness and reductionists that would reduce man to animalized Last Men.

The latter obviously was a slight too far for Russell.

>> No.11557063

>>11556884
We are discussing this issue under the context of Russell's attacks on scholasticism. An empirical criticism of them is something Nietzsche would have seen as valuable or necessary, albeit simplistic. The fact is that you are defending their tradition in the name of a philosopher who repudiated them equally o more so.

>> No.11557190

>>11557063
>The fact is that you are defending their tradition
But I'm not defending their tradition. I'm just saying that Nietzsche pooped on Russell (albeit indirectly because Russell was mostly after his time) and Russell obviously got butthurt and responded by shitposting on Nietzsche.

You need to get out of this black and white thinking that putting down reductionists is not putting up otherworldists.