Some Questions.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Howdy chaps.

So I'm reading Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy. In the introduction, he gives a short list of philosophical questions that he freely admits aren't soluble ones, but also that aren't answerable by science. I'm going to post them here, and I'd like some answers to them. Even if it's just to say that the language is confused, he uses meaningless terms, all philosophy is useless, etc.

Is the world divided into mind and matter?
If so, what is mind and what is matter?
Is mind subject to matter, or is it posessed of independent powers?

Has the universe any unity or purpose?
Is it evolving towards some goal?
Are there really laws of nature, or do we believe in them only because of our innate love of order?

Is man what he seems to the astronomer, a tiny lump of impure carbon and water, impotently crawling on a small and unimportant planet?
Or is he what he seems to Hamlet?
Is he perhaps both at once?

Is there a way of living that is noble and another that is base, or are all ways of living merely futile?
If there is a way of living that is noble, in what does it consist, and how shall we achieve it?
Must the good be eternal in order to deserve to be valued, or is it worth seeking even if the universe is moving inexorably towards death?

Is there such a thing as wisdom, or is what seems such merely the ultimate refinement of folly?

There you have it. I'm interested to see your thoughts.

-Alex

[apathy maybe]

I have that book too (though a few thousand kilometres away at the moment).

"Is the world divided into mind and matter?" If he really thought that this was unanswerable by science, then my respect for the man goes down a bit. I think all us materialists would say that this question is stupid.

"If so, what is mind and what is matter?" Mind is simply the result of matter interacting.

"Is mind subject to matter, or is it posessed of independent powers?" Mind is subject to matter because it is simply the result of the interactions of matter.

"Has the universe any unity or purpose?" No.

"Is it evolving towards some goal?" No.

"Are there really laws of nature, or do we believe in them only because of our innate love of order?" Personally I do not think that things are chaotic as such. I believe in randomness, but not in things happening for no reason. If there are not "laws of nature" (and this is a problematic term as I am sure Rosa will demonstrate soon), then why do things happen? Why don't we float about?

"Is man what he seems to the astronomer, a tiny lump of impure carbon and water, impotently crawling on a small and unimportant planet?" Yes.
"Or is he what he seems to Hamlet?" I'm an uneducated slob. I haven't read Hamlet.
"Is he perhaps both at once?" But I'm going to say that humans are not special or important. To argue otherwise is a non-materialist, non-rationalist position.

"Is there a way of living that is noble and another that is base, or are all ways of living merely futile?"
"If there is a way of living that is noble, in what does it consist, and how shall we achieve it?"
"Must the good be eternal in order to deserve to be valued, or is it worth seeking even if the universe is moving inexorably towards death?"
These three questions are simply. There is no one way to live. Ethics are chosen individually. And because the universe will not be around forever, to talk of 'good' needing to be eternal is stupid.


"Is there such a thing as wisdom, or is what seems such merely the ultimate refinement of folly?" I don't really understand this question.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn, most, if not all, of your questions are based on a misuse of language; as such, they cease to be questions.

For example, you might as well ask "Is the world divided into Jabberwockies and Toves, or Slithies and Jumwocks'?

This approach to knowledge, is, I contend, as old as class society (but I can pove it!), and has been perfected by ruling-class thinkers since. If there is a world underlying material reality, accessible to thought alone, then those engagerd in labour must rightly serve those who have privilegd access to that world. [So, doff your cap, and be gratreful you have a job....]

So, such 'thinkers' had to distort the material language of the working class (in each mode of production, reflecting different ruling-class priorities, but with the same approach to a priori knowledge underlying the lot: theses about fundamental aspects of reality can be derived from mere words), in order to motivate their ideal take on reality, and thus rationalise class rule.

2500 years later, and not one answer to a single such question later, we (supposed radicals!) are still falling for this bogus approach to a priori knowledge, only now we just have more jargon to help us on or slow journey to nowhere.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

To be fair Rosa, Russell acknowledges that science is the only path to knowledge. He says philosophy is essentially speculation, and then defends the point of speculation. I don't mean that that validates the questions, but Russell was not one of the "Ruling class thinkers".

Just so you don't lose too much respect for him, I've found a nice quote in his section on Marx.


All the elements of Marx's philosophy that are derived from Hegel are unscientific, in the sense that there is no reason whatever to suppose them true.

-Alex

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn:


but Russell was not one of the "Ruling class thinkers".

Well, in so far as he bought into a 2500 year old practice, he was one.

He indulged in endless speculation, and managed to answer not one single question.

The ruling ideas are always those of the ruling class.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

But he acknowledged frequently that the questions were not answerable objectively. Surely that absolves him? He says "I contend that all definite knowledge belongs to science".

-Alex

[tolstoyevski]

Always keep in mind that Russell was working for "Congress for Cultural Freedom" which was in service of CIA, during the cold-war. So his works are tending to create somekind of ideological damage by telling lies rather than truths. This includes asking wrong questions, distorting facts etc...

In 1948, as an anti-communist he proposed to threaten the USSR with atomic bombs.
Some articles of Russell were published in a magazine called Encounter which got economical support from CIA and this fact is declared openly.

edit:
What is it, if not the ideology of the ruling class:
[Russell's solution on population growth]


"If a Black Death could spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full.... The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it?"

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Ouch. I wasn't aware of that.

Seems putting my tail between my legs would be an appropriate course of action here. :blush:

-Alex

[Hit The North]

"If a Black Death could spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full.... The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it?"


Blimey, is that a quote from one of the bourgeoisie's top intellectuals? A professional footballer could come up with better. :D

[mel]

Russell wasn't an anti-communist by any stretch of the imagination, but he did have a problem with the way that the USSR went about things. Read his pamphlet "The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism". He thought that the revolution was a great thing, but due to his experiences in the Soviet Union, he predicted that the USSR was doomed to failure. He also wrote an article in his book "In Praise of Idleness" entitled "The Case for Socialism". And I got this little gem from wikipedia, which makes me skeptical of the claim that he would have called for nuclear action against the USSR


"Russell spent the 1950s and 1960s engaged in various political causes, primarily related to nuclear disarmament and opposing the U.S. invasion of Vietnam. He wrote a great many letters to world leaders during this period. He also became a hero to many of the youthful members of the New Left. During the 1960s, in particular, Russell became increasingly vocal about his disapproval of what he felt to be the American government's near-genocidal policies."

I also find that difficult to believe due to the kinds of things I've read of his, like in the book "Political Ideals" which talks about a few different kinds of political and economic systems. It just doesn't fit with his character.

Edit: I found the context of that other quote, too. I don't think he's making a serious suggestion, here. And really, the only practical way to curb population growth is to get rid of a large portion of the population, or stop people from procreating in vast numbers. While unpleasant, it's the truth.


"At present the population of the world is increasing at about 58,000 per diem. War, so far, has had no very great effect on this increase, which continued throughout each of the world wars.... War ... has hitherto been disappointing in this respect ... but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full.... The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it?"

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn:


But he acknowledged frequently that the questions were not answerable objectively. Surely that absolves him? He says "I contend that all definite knowledge belongs to science".

It matters not whether he admited this, he deliberatley enrolled himself in a traditional way of approaching such questions -- they can be solved by thought alone (or, in his case, by 'logical constructions').

If they were scientific, then he was not qualified to try to further 'knowledge'. If they weren't, then they could not be a contribution to knowledge.

I have to say, though, that he was one of the least culpable of leading modern philosophers.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Amaranth...:


And really, the only practical way to curb population growth is to get rid of a large portion of the population, or stop people from procreating in vast numbers. While unpleasant, it's the truth.

This sort of stuff has no place here; I'd not repeat if I were you, or you might find yourself 'restricted'.

[mel]

Sorry about that, i didn't know. I'm not here to stir up trouble. And by saying that I was in no way suggesting that we should ever take such an action. There is plenty of room left for people on this earth, and by the time there isn't, there may be room for us elsewhere (Who knows how far we may have progressed into space by then?). I don't think that human intervention in "Curbing population growth" is necessary or desirable, I was just noting that there was some truth in what he said.

Can you please tell me where that was "crossing the line" so that I can avoid doing so in the future? I really don't want to cause problems here, but I need to know what kinds of comments are unacceptable. Was it just because it could have been taken in such a way that it appeared that I advocated mass murder/genocide? Would a little disclaimer like "I am in no way advocating this, but..." be enough to avoid misunderstandings in the future? Thanks in advance for the help, I would like to be a useful contributor to the forum, and need to know where the line is drawn so that I may avoid these sorts of misunderstandings in the future.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Amaranthine:


Can you please tell me where that was "crossing the line" so that I can avoid doing so in the future?

I think it is this:


And really, the only practical way to curb population growth is to get rid of a large portion of the population.... While unpleasant, it's the truth.

Made you sound like a Nazi, which I am sure you are not!! :)

I know you put a sort of disclaimer nearby, but it was a rather weak one!

[mel]

Thanks :-)

I'll try to be more careful in the future.

And, as to not derail the discussion any further, I tried to look closer into some of the claims made about Russell's involvement with CIA funded projects. What strikes me as I'm researching is that it appears that nobody knew that the CIA had been funding them until 1967 or so. The Encounter, for instance, had its founder resign after the discovery that funding was coming from the CIA. The magazine had existed for 14 years before anybody found out. Saying that they were "in service of the CIA" is a little bit of a stretch, as far as I'm concerned.

Russell was a Democratic Socialist, unless I'm reading something wrong, and so calling him "Anti-Communist" just doesn't seem to work, considering that the end goals are the same. He did, eventually, become very Anti-USSR (In my humble opinion, with good reason), and that alone could explain his involvement with "anti-communist" organizations such as the Congress for Cultural Freedom, and why some of his more critical articles on the USSR may have been published in the Encounter. I can certainly see why some would label him anti-communist, and some of his quotes would certainly seem to reflect that point of view (There's one in particular from "The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism" that I said you should read earlier that comes to mind).


One who believes as I do, that free intellect is the chief engine of human progress, cannot but be fundamentally opposed to Bolshevism as much as to the Church of Rome. The hopes which inspire communism are, in the main, as admirable as those instilled by the Sermon on the Mount, but they are held as fanatically and are as likely to do as much harm.

But I think that's taken sorely out of context, and is at odds with other statements he's made on the subject of Socialism like this one from "The Case for Socialism", which was written 15 years later.


For my part, while I am as convinced a Socialist as the most ardent Marxian, I do not regard Socialism as a gospel of proletarian revenge, nor even, primarily, as a means of securing economic justice. I regard it primarily as an adjustment to machine production demanded by considerations of common sense, and calculated to increase the happiness, not only of proletarians, but of all except a tiny minority of the human race.

It seems to me that if anything he says is taken out of context too severely that it could be made to advance just about any agenda. I haven't yet read the piece that his quote on population control was taken from, but it may make more sense if taken in context, I'm going to try to track down the book/article/whatever and see if I can't shed some light on that comment. (Edit: It's from something called "The Impact of Science on Society", which I unfortunately don't appear to have a copy of. I'm going to see if I can turn up a part of the quote in a "google books" search, to get just slightly more context.) I don't really see any evidence that would really convince me that he's some sort of a shill for the CIA though.

In all of my research, I still can't find anything to back up the claim that he ever called for nuclear action against the USSR though. Do you have a source to back that up? It appears to go against just about every other aspect of his philosophy. If you can find something, let me know, I really am just trying to become more informed.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Can't help you on much of that, since I never bothered with Russell's political views (those, and the rubbish he used to write on ethics, can be lost, and humanity will not notice, or be any the worse off (in his defence, he had to do this to make a living) -- his early work in Philosophy (i.e., pre-1914) and logic, however, is, in contrast, first rate.

You might like to read this to help your research:

Reisch, G. (2005), 'How The Cold War Transformed Philosophy Of Science. The Icy Slopes Of Logic' (Cambridge University Press).

[More Fire for the People]

Edit, fuck nevermind. So far as I know Russel was a monist, a democratic socialist, and some other analytical hayday stuff.

[apathy maybe]

Russell was a very contradictory fellow. On the one hand he was a socialist and sympathetic to anarchism (he thought that anarchism was unachievable), on the other hand he desired a world state and was not opposed to using large amounts of violence to achieve it.

This is where the idea of using nuclear weapons against the USSR came in. He thought that because the west was the strongest power of the time, they had the best chance of bringing about a single world government. You offer the chance to countries peacefully to join, and if they don't, you force them to (using nukes if needed).

The Citizens Electoral Council in Australia (very right-wing pseudo fascist group who loves Lyndon LaRouche) hates Russell. Though I am sure they got that partly from LaRouche. They also think that the Greens are fascists ...

Russell's personally philosophy is often quite readable and enjoyable. And I would recommended it to everyone (with of course the condition that you read critically, which you should do with everything).

[tolstoyevski]

Bertrand Russell was a bourgeois philosopher. Which means, (at least must mean) an enemy to us.
Do you have any suspicions about that?
Isn't there something wrong with his ideas, that he participated the anti-USSR conferences which were held up by CIA, by U-S-A as a response to the conferences held up by USSR in europe? hmm? Do you think, in a war like that is it possible to be, to stay neutral both to USA and USSR?
If they invite me to a conference like that, I would think many times (especially if I call myself as a socialist, pah!); "Is there something wrong with me? Am I doing something wrong?"
But no, Russell participated them without doubt and as the historian F. S. Saunders says, he got "fatty portions" from these.
No matter he knows or not that the Cultural Congress for Freedom is fed by CIA. The important thing is his ideology was loose enough to be used in cold war "in service of bourgeois" which is now killing thousands of people in Palestine, Iraq, Africa, Mexico, in my country..


(...)on the other hand he desired a world state and was not opposed to using large amounts of violence to achieve it.

yesss. This is what the USA trying to be nowadays(nowayears?). We all know here that Russell's look towards the class struggle was from the other side of the barricades.
Social democratic, petty-bourgeois "contradictory fellow"... Contradictory to what? We have many of them..
Ooppss, I take my words back, look at that:


This is where the idea of using nuclear weapons against the USSR came in. He thought that because the west was the strongest power of the time, they had the best chance of bringing about a single world government.

amarant, you know the meaning of west in this quotation? hmm?
being more than a direction, west here means imperialism, west here means murder.. never never forget nagasaki...

ok. let's say it again:
Imperialistic, grand-bourgeois, contradictory fellow..
We also call them anti-communist...

You might also read this:

F. Stonor Saunders, Cultural Cold War...

[apathy maybe]

He opposed the USSR for the same reasons that I also would have opposed the USSR if I had have been around at the time. The USSR was a shit hole for most of its existence. That said, he would have supported the USSR bringing about a world state if he had of thought they had any chance of succeeding. Because to him, the world state idea was more important then who was actually running it. He envisioned a movement like the Roman Empire, yes imperialistic, but with modern technology less likely to fall apart. I'm not saying it was a good thing what he wanted, simply that he would have supported anyone who could have brought it about. Once the USSR had nuclear weapons he dropped the idea of nuclear weapons being used against the USSR (he knew they would get them sooner or latter, which is why he advocated it ASAP after WW2). One major reason he wanted a world state was because it would end wars like the one that had just finished (WW2).

You call him an imperialist, yet he was locked up during WW1 for opposing the war. He was vehemently anti-war, which is (as I said) why he wanted a world state. He opposed the Vietnam and Korean wars and called for nuclear disarmament (after it was obvious that anyone could have them). In the 70's he condemned Israeli actions in the Middle East, some imperialist.

He was a supporter of women's rights and of open sexuality.

And as I have already said, he was a socialist (though more of a Fabian then a Marxist, in fact he opposed Marxism to a certain extent).

So, while you can throw up the insults, I say that Bertrand Russell as a philosophy, a mathematician and a logician has a lot to offer. Even if you don't agree with his particular politics, much of his philosophy is worth reading. If only for the fact that it has influenced so much in "Western" philosophy.

[tolstoyevski]

The USSR was a shit hole for most of its existence.

I'm not asking for your subjective ready-made doxas, this is disgusting...
And I'm sure that with your pseudo-anarchism you would participate many many Congress for Cultural Freedom meetings to destroy that "shit hole" if you had been around that time. You can stay and enjoy in your countries of freespeech and thought with confused minds, defending a state-defender.. pah!

Opposing to something, being against is very very easy.
What concerns me here is the practice. Not the confused theories of the world with one state. Even you can see here there's no class-based view in Russell, he can support anybody if they're powerful. He can quickly change his mind (and his side) if the enemy is powerful enough to get nuclear bombs...
Otherwise crush the enemy, one war to end all wars! No matter who lives or dies...

This attitude is very useful for imperialism, isn't it? If the result will be positive, for ex. if you will achieve in bringing democracy, you can invade any country..

Oh pardon me, but he was a supporter of women rights, huh.. Ok then..
But only the rights of the women who were on the powerful side...