Right now I'm reading Bertrand Russell, and I feel pretty identified with his ideas. What's the 2016 equivalent? What changed during the moment of his death and today? What should I study to be updated?
i heard there was this website, which is like an entire community that deals with his legacy, forgot the name tho
A lot of stuff happened in-between his death and 2016. Please, narrow it down.
Until you specify which Russellian idea(s) you found yourself "identifying" with, we cannot help you.
>>7762300
Well, if you've read Russell you should probably read Frege if you haven't already and then Wittgenstein to witness the culmination of early analytic philosophy. After that it gets even more exciting with Quine and Putnam and the reemergence of analytic metaphysics through Lewis and Armstrong. You could try the positivists like Carnap and Ayer. It all really depends on where you want to go.
Noam Chomsky would probably be his modern-day equivalent. Chomsky kind of idolized Russell.
>>7762329
>Noam Chomsky
I was gonna say this too.
>>7762325
>>7762329
>>7762338
Noting down right now. Thanks!
>>7762318
>Until you specify which Russellian idea(s) you found yourself "identifying" with, we cannot help you.
Let's start with that logical criticism to religious ideas and organisations, his unethical education suggestions, searching for the common good...
I dislike a bit all that 'positivism', but if I search deeper inside of me, I end feeling the same.
>>7762362
Also, human as part of nature.
For the love of god, don't listen to Chomsky about anything but language.
>>7762400
Please, explain yourself.
>>7762422
Chomsky is like Bill Nye; a complete fucking retard when he goes beyond his area of expertise.
The same is true of people like Christopher Hitchens; who was fine in religious debate, but an utter moron when it came to politics.
>>7762325
>It all really depends on where you want to go.
That's a pretty good question. Probably there's a long path until I can know what I want. What I can say for now is that I don't appreciate social 'ballasts' like morals. I know that are something useful to keep masses under control, but I feel that it also denies the evolution and growing of the human animal.
>>7762362
>his unethical education suggestions, searching for the common good...
This is Ethics and Russell wasn't all that prominent in Ethics. His pal and contemporary, G. E. Moore, was, however: he wrote an influential book, perhaps the first ethical treatise of the analytic kind ever, "Principia Ethica".
>Let's start with that logical criticism to religious ideas and organisations
You want philosophy of religion (a hybrid branch of metaphysics, logic, and theology). However, if you haven't had any prior exposure to analytic philosophy and logic besides Russell, it is going to be tough going. Arguing against something like "The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology" without knowing any mathematics is near impossible.
>>7762450
>utter moron when it came to politics.
what did you mean by this vague statement?
.
>>7762496
>Neo-Conservative (I.e. Globalist Warmonger)
>Supported the toppling of Saddam (which destabilized the Middle East in perpetuity)
>Supported Bush
Need I go on?
>>7762486
OP here. I really appreciate your post. Have you formally studied this?
>>7762450
>people like Christopher Hitchens; who was fine in religious debate
CELESTIAL
>>7762684
He was. Don't get mad that he pulled no punches with the Left's new favourite religion (Islam).
>>7762517
> I disagree with his opinions, so he is a moron!
I am contained in none of those categories, but come on m8
>>7762703
>Opinions don't define intellect
Okay, champ.
>>7762715
You just said he was "fine" as someone to debate with.
>>7762702
HOW DARE YOU
>>7762517
This desu, had he been a libertarian or classical liberal, he probably wouldn't have supported such idiotic positions.
>>7762729
About a certain topic, as in his area of expertise.
>>7762743
did hitchens have an area of expertise besides memeolgy?
>identifying with a literal cuck
>>7762517
Why are these bad things?
>>7762517
All of these things, the destabilizing of the ME essentially, may seem unpleasant in the short term but are really the best way to fix the region, forcing them into the modern fold via some modern-colonialism. Oils never been cheaper, brah. Hitchens didn't like Islam, this is how you get rid of it. By killing and displacing it. No-one likes refugees now but they will become more like westerners over time and eventually their original barbaric state will be totally supplanted. Neocons are awesome.
>>7762312
>>7762517
>"Colonialism is wrong! Cultural values are relative! Smash the patriarchy!"
whatever worx i guess
>>7763734
I this imagine is in fact absurdly reductionist, but, I do generally feel this way about Russel. When I learned the way he felt about Philosophical Investigations, I was forever put off him. How he could work so closely with people like Whitehead and Wittgenstein and still be an advocate for his philosophy is strange.
I let this here. Somebedy might find it interesting.
>>7764398
I didn't know Schoppy was a idealist, that existentialism had either ended or lasted that long and that post-strucutralism ended in 2009, and no one else did, I suppose.
This chart has some serious problems
>>7764408
Wasn't he a part of the Young Hegelians at some point, though?
>>7764421
No, Schopennhauer was teaching classes at the same time as Hegel, and got butthurt the students prefered Hegel's classes
As an atheist, I recognize this as the single greatest defense of theism ever assembled. Craig and Moreland basically made a list of the most compelling contemporary arguments for the existence of God, tracked down their foremost living defenders, and gave them 50-100 pages to make their case. The result is awe-inspiring, even for the atheist.
I do not expect the book to succeed in demonstrating theism, but it might take a full decade for me to fully analyze its meaty arguments and come to some conclusions.
Even if Earth’s universities are emptied of theists by the year 2400, we may look then look back and see ‘The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology’ as the high-point in the philosophical defense of theism. So I give this book 5 stars not because it convinced me that a magical super-being spoke the universe into existence and revealed himself to ancient, ignorant people through the virgin birth of a man-god who did party tricks, got killed, then rose from the dead and flew off into the sky. No, I give this book 5 stars because it’s the best defense of such a myth that can possibly be mustered.
High points include Robin Collins’ defense of the teleological argument and McGrew & McGrew’s astounding Bayesian defense of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.
Also, readers may be surprised to learn that the modal ontological argument has progressed a great deal since Plantinga. To my knowledge, atheists have yet to show what might be wrong with Robert Maydole’s latest ontological argument, printed within.
Because I hold this book in such high esteem, I will be writing hundreds of pages in response to its arguments, starting with Craig’s kalam argument and Linville’s moral argument. You can track my progress at CommonSenseAtheism.com.
‘The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology’ is a tour-de-force of analytic philosophy. If the world is just, it will shape the theistic side of the debate over the existence of God for at least a decade. In my opinion, it has no equal among atheistic literature – yet.
test
>>7764449
I don't know what this has to do with anything, but top kek.
>>7762300
>feel identified with his ideas
you feel like a mathematical equation?
he didnt do much in the way of philosophy bro so i dont really understand what you're talking about. just take a look at his epic butthurt he had when set theory became a thing. dude was not a clever dude.
>I have solved all human thought forever
>no you diddly didnt
|>fuuuuuuuuuu-
>>7762819
This guy gets it. Wish there was a quicker way, but it'll do.
>>7765222
Trips
>>7762788
>>7762422
>>7762400
>>7762300
Dubs
>>7762300
What changed was that Gödel BTFO of his most important work, "Principia Mathematica", during his lifetime, by establishing his incompleteness theorems (not to be confused with other of Gödel's theorems), which effectively scuttled Russell and his older colleague Whitehead's larger formalist project. So in a perfect world, you would read Gödel among other things (the relevant book is the extremely thin but extremely technical /On Formally Undecidable Propositions In Principia Mathematica and Related Systems/, which can be had via amazon or brought into any decent "new" bookstore for all of about 10bux. Wittgenstein's Tractatus also refers to Whitehead and Russell's principia, using similar logical notation, particularly the backwards-C-thing for "implies".
Russell also wrote a book called "Why I am not a Christian" in which he developed his personal dislike of that religion's theology. So if you can stomach fedora-stuff, you might want to compare this to later atheist books.
Russell also wrote a history of Western Philosophy, which is regularly derided on /lit/ as spotty and dated. He was also a peacenik in practical life, so you might look up material on anti-nuclear proliferation, anti-war movements, etc.
Russell is generally held as "an important guy", which he is, but much of his work is dated. And like I said, his mathematical project, shared with colleague Whitehead, had a big hole blown in its side.
I don't know much about his ethical writings.
>>7762300
Question: How do you physically read philosophy? Do you have a pen and notebook and stop after every couple of pages to think and take notes or what? How are university students taught to study it?
>>7765333
He can still stand as the inventor of type theory.
>>7765333
>as spotty and dated
it's far worse than that
>>7765335
Many people like to write notes in the margins, but since most people don't read philosophy seriously (or just to pass an elective class), a very common sight at college bookstores is some used copy of Plato or Hobbes where the annotation stops or really peters out about 50 pages in.
I consider this to be both a pain in the ass and also defacing the book, so I don't do it except in extraordinary circumstances. Personally I'd go through a section/chapter until I was clear on several points/had arrived at some larger point, had a confusion or two, then either hand-write or type up some notes elsewhere.
The more important activity was group discussion. Not that anyone apart from maybe you cares, but I minored in philosophy, so I actually took 5-6 classes. In every class save one, we'd sit in a circle and go over the readings. Desks aren't in a circle? Whoops, gotta circle the wagons first otherwise we're not having a class. Basically like a book club, I seem to remember some departmental meme about how this was "Socratic" - So-crates and his buddies would sit in a circle, apparently. Don't quote me as to the historical accuracy of that, it's been a while.
>>7765333
>What changed was that Gödel BTFO of his most important work, "Principia Mathematica", during his lifetime, by establishing his incompleteness theorems (not to be confused with other of Gödel's theorems), which effectively scuttled Russell and his older colleague Whitehead's larger formalist project.
This is wrong. The formalist project was H I L B E R T 's programme, not Russell's. Russell pioneered T Y P E T H E O R Y. Russell is not associated with formalism, but logicism aka he was in the same boat as Frege.
Won't comment on the rest, except that other, non-Godelian proofs (due to other, later logicians) of Godel's incompleteness theorems are usually taught these days.
>>7765375
Writing PM was itself in practice a major literal formalist (reduce-it-all-to-symbol-manipulation) project, however, so you are mistaken.
Just because Russell's personal views are more closely associated with other labels (logicism, your invocation of type theory) does not mean that the PM project was not itself a formalist project. The below links have language that supports both my view and yours, but note particularly that someone somewhere decided that PM was worth mentioning in the "Formalism (mathematics)" article at all:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalism_%28mathematics%29#Principia_Mathematica
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica#Theoretical_basis
Even scrolling up a bit in the first link, we can see the claim that Hilbert himself was not a "strict formalist" in today's terms. More retconning.
>>7765418
>Writing PM was itself in practice a major literal formalist (reduce-it-all-to-symbol-manipulation) project, however, so you are mistaken.
You're essentially confusing 'formalism' with 'constructing a system that founds mathematics'. I repeat, formalism is associated with Hilbert, not Russell; formalism is a commitment (belief) to a special metaphysics of logic, that differs from other metaphysics of logic: logicism, structuralism, nominalism, platonism, etc.
Have you read anything at all on philosophy of maths?
Richward Dawkins
>>7764398
>Common Era
lmao
>>7764398
the history of *western* philosophy
>inb4 any meme
there is a nice course on logic, philosophy and mathematics at Cambridge
http://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/curr-students/II/II-lecture-notes/
for the theorems by Godel,
http://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/curr-students/II/II-lecture-notes/ii-gwt5.pdf
where you increase the number in the name ''gwt5'', to get all the pdfs.
