Difference between revisions of "Bertrand Russell"

Revision as of 01:43, July 5, 2007

conservatives are ignorant idiots

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-[[Image:998086u.jpg|right|thumb]]
+conservatives are ignorant idiots
-'''Bertrand Russell,''' 3rd Earl Russell (1872–1970) was a 20th century philosopher, mathematician and atheist<ref>His own characterization: "I never know whether I should say 'Agnostic' or whether I should say 'Atheist'.... As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one [can] prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods." Russell, Bertrand (1947) "Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?"[http://www.luminary.us/russell/atheist_agnostic.html] Most online sources say "by which one prove," probably a mistake.</ref> and was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950 for his writings.
-Russell visited the Soviet Union and met Lenin in 1920. In a tract, ''The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism'', he wrote "I believe that Communism is necessary to the world, and I believe ... [[Bolshevism]] deserves the gratitude and admiration of all the progressive part of mankind.But the method by which Moscow aims at establishing Communism is a pioneer method, rough and dangerous, too heroic to count the cost of the opposition it arouses. I do not believe that by this method a stable or desirable form of Communism can be established. Three issues seem to me possible from the present situation. The first is the ultimate defeat of Bolshevism by the forces of capitalism. The second is the victory of the Bolshevists accompanied by a complete loss of their ideals and a régime of Napoleonic imperialism. The third is a prolonged world-war, in which civilization will go under, and all its manifestations (including Communism) will be forgotten.It is because I do not believe that the methods of the Third International can lead to the desired goal that I have thought it worth while to point out [7]what seem to me undesirable features in the present state of Russia. I think there are lessons to be learnt which must be learnt if the world is ever to achieve what is desired by those in the West who have sympathy with the original aims of the Bolsheviks. I do not think these lessons can be learnt except by facing frankly and fully whatever elements of failure there are in Russia. I think these elements of failure are less attributable to faults of detail than to an impatient philosophy, which aims at creating a new world without sufficient preparation in the opinions and feelings of ordinary men and women.But although I do not believe that Communism can be realized immediately by the spread of Bolshevism, I do believe that, if Bolshevism falls, it will have contributed a legend and a heroic attempt without which ultimate success might never have come. A fundamental economic reconstruction, bringing with it very far-reaching changes in ways of thinking and feeling, in philosophy and art and private relations, seems absolutely necessary if industrialism is to become the servant of man instead of his master. In all this, I am at one with the Bolsheviks; politically, I criticize them only when their methods seem to involve a departure from their own ideals. There is, however, another aspect of Bolshevism from which I differ more fundamentally. Bolshevism is not merely a political doctrine; it is also a religion, with elaborate dogmas and inspired scriptures. When Lenin wishes to prove some proposition, he does so, if possible, by quoting texts from Marx and Engels. A full-fledged Communist is not merely a man who believes that land and capital should be held in common, and their produce distributed as nearly equally as possible. He is a man who entertains a number of elaborate and dogmatic beliefs—such as philosophic materialism, for example—which may be true, but are not, to a scientific temper, capable of being known to be true with any certainty. This habit, of militant certainty about objectively doubtful matters, is one from which, since the Renaissance, the world has been gradually emerging, into that temper of constructive and fruitful scepticism which constitutes the scientific outlook. I believe the scientific outlook to be immeasurably important to the human race...The present work is the outcome of a visit to [10]Russia, supplemented by much reading and discussion both before and after. I have thought it best to record what I saw separately from theoretical considerations, and I have endeavoured to state my impressions without any bias for or against the Bolsheviks. I received at their hands the greatest kindness and courtesy, and I owe them a debt of gratitude for the perfect freedom which they allowed me in my investigations. I am conscious that I was too short a time in Russia to be able to form really reliable judgments; however, I share this drawback with most other westerners who have written on Russia since the October Revolution.
-"To understand Bolshevism it is not sufficient to know facts; it is necessary also to enter with sympathy or imagination into a new spirit. The chief thing that the Bolsheviks have done is to create a hope, or at any rate to make strong and widespread a hope which was formerly confined to a few...I cannot share the hopes of the Bolsheviks any more than those of the Egyptian anchorites; I regard both as tragic delusions, destined to bring [16]upon the world centuries of darkness and futile violence...I do not know whether Bolshevism can be prevented from acquiring universal power. But even if it cannot, I am persuaded that those who stand out against it, not from love of ancient injustice, but in the name of the free spirit of Man, will be the bearers of the seeds of progress, from which, when the world's gestation is accomplished, new life will be born."
-His most significant early work was a three-volume attempt to derive all mathematical principles from a well-defined set of axioms and inference rules in symbolic logic, entitled ''Principia Mathematica'' (1910-1913).  He published this work with [[Alfred North Whitehead]]. Although the ''Principia'' is widely considered by one of the most important and seminal works in logic and philosophy, part of its success was in inspiring others to question its propositions. In 1931, [[Kurt Godel]] proved that what Russell attempted could not possibly be both consistent and complete.
-During the [[Cold War]] he advocated nuclear disarmament, even if it were unilateral on the part of Western powers, a stance which some people mocked as "better Red than dead".
-A member of British nobility with the title of "Earl", Russell remained a hero to those on the political left, particularly in the English-speaking world, throughout his life.   In his 1929 book ''Marriage and Morals'', he argued that that sex between a man and woman who are not married to each other is not necessarily immoral if they truly love one another.  In the 1960's he became a vocal critic of the [[Vietnam War]].
-Russell also famously encapsulated the dilemma faced by all those seeking objective moral truths in the face of almost overwhelming logical evidence to the contrary:
-''"I cannot see how to refute the arguments for the subjectivity of ethical values, but I find myself incapable of believing that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don't like it."'' <ref>[http://uk.encarta.msn.com/quote_1861989747/Ethics_I_cannot_see_how_to_refute_the_arguments_for_the.html]</ref>
-Philosophy, 1960, "Notes on Philosophy"
-==Contributions to Mathematics==
-Bertrand Russell was particularly known for the famous "Russell Paradox", which wrecked havoc on intuitivistic set theory. The basic restatement of the paradox is the following: suppose there is a predicate "x is a set that does not contain itself", does the set that is the extension of that predicate contain itself. To solve this, Russell came up with the incomprehensibly complex [[theory of types]], which was later abandoned in favour of the [[Zermello-Frankel axioms]].
-==Notes and references==
-<references/>
-{{DEFAULTSORT:Russell, Bertrand}}
-[[Category:Nobel laureates in Literature]]
-[[Category:Philosophers]]
-[[Category:Mathematicians]]

Difference between revisions of "Bertrand Russell"

Revision as of 01:43, July 5, 2007

Navigation menu

Search