Bertrand russell on sceptisism (the philosophy)

by bohm 26 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  bohm

  I am currently reading bertrand russells "a history of western philosophy" and this passage struck me as true:

  Scepticism naturally made an appeal to many unphilosophic minds. People observed the diversity of schools and the acerbity of their disputes, and decided that all alike were pretending to knowledge which was in fact unattainable. Scepticism was a lazy man's consolation, since it showed the ignorant to be as wise as the reputed men of learning. To men who, by temperament, required a gospel, it might seem unsatisfying, but like every doctrine of the Hellenistic period it recommended itself as an antidote to worry. Why trouble about the future? It is wholly uncertain. You may as well enjoy the present; "What's to come is still unsure." For these reasons, Scepticism enjoyed a considerable popular success.

  It should be observed that Scepticism as a philosophy is not merely doubt, but what may be called dogmatic doubt. The man of science says "I think it is so-and-so, but I am not sure." The man of intellectual curiosity says "I don't know how it is, but I hope to find out." The philosophical Sceptic says "nobody knows, and nobody ever can know." It is this element of dogmatism that makes the system vulnerable. Sceptics, of course, deny that they assert the impossibility of knowledge dogmatically, but their denials are not very convincing.
• 

  braincleaned

  Interesting words from one of my fave authors... a subject I wrestle a lot with. Thank you for sharing.
• 

  breakfast of champions

  Good quote!
• 

  snare&racket

  I enjoy philosophy yet I deteste how it is compartmentslised into strictly segregated, sect like thinking based on nothing but human logic.

  Humans have evolved to dodge lions in a jungle not consider the cogs and wheels of philosophical truth. It all seems so....clunky. The thinking is so human, so much is based on pattern logic and observation despite our limited observations and evidential faulty logic.

  I will always stand by the material now, perhaps a result of 25 years wasted via the easy deception of logic and human reasoning.

  The evidence...... that is where my cash pile sits, alongside the predictable and the successful. I.e. science. Science works. Asking questions, making observations and predictions ......simply works. Guessing at what we can know and making conclusions on the value of even seeking knowledge is futile and redundant in my opinion, we already see that seeking answers is beneficial. The scientific method works!

  I see the foundations of the scientific method as modern skeptism. I believe healthy skeptisism doesn't close the eyes and quit in the vague possibility that nothing is knowable, scientific skeptisism says lets wipe the slate clean and start afresh with evidence based reasoning.

  in an empty universe, with no preconceptions or beliefs, skeptisism feels almost melancholic, for it is unjust and unnecessary for everything is simply the truth.

  But on earth in 2013 with 150.000 + years of human beleifs, mythology and misconceptioms, following the invention of a succesful scientific method only 150 years ago, healthy modern skeptisim is a mechanism of sorting truth from fiction.

  My ramblings make sense to me, a contradiction to my claim to ignore simple human logic snd instincts, but we have to start somwhere, skepisic seems to hold the most potential for truth..... With reasonable acceptance of what cannot be proven beyond any doubt, something simply not achievable.

  I am a total amateur in philosophy, so forgive me I am sure Ihave broken a milion rules and contradicted myself a hundred times.

  snare x
• 

  bohm

  Well said snare and racket!
• 

  bohm

  Interview with russell: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=interview%20bertrand%20russell&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCwQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DOziPcicgmbw&ei=zx8aUrgNqoztBo_RgbAO&usg=AFQjCNFXniv9P8S5cdtc31rUe-dlDPyLPQ&sig2=z6eWVR0Kfwn6H0cg0-6Zkw&bvm=bv.51156542,d.ZGU
• 

  cofty

  Very interesting. I missed this thread, thanks for linking to it.

  "Scepticism was a lazy man's consolation, since it showed the ignorant to be as wise as the reputed men of learning"

  This is so true, with the proviso that modern skepticism is a different, positive and optimistic, way of thinking as Snare and Racket observed above.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Why not read something more interesting? Isn't Bertand Russell like the blandest most derivative "philosopher" of the twentieth century?

  When the best arguments against something people can come up with are that they don't like its implications, then dare I say it, we may be onto something worthy of the name truth.
• 

  Chariklo

  Slimboyfat, your derision of Bertrand Russell rings very hollow. I don't think his reputation has much to fear from it!

  Snare & Racket, your post was thoughtful and interesting. You make good points here.
• 

  bohm

  Slimboyfat:

  Why not read something more interesting? Isn't Bertand Russell like the blandest most derivative "philosopher" of the twentieth century?

  From his wikipedia page:

  Russell led the British "revolt against idealism " in the early 20th century. [6] He is considered one of the founders of analytic philosophy along with his predecessor Gottlob Frege and his protégé Ludwig Wittgenstein . He is widely held to be one of the 20th century's premier logicians. [3] He co-authored, with A. N. Whitehead , Principia Mathematica , an attempt to ground mathematics on logic. His philosophical essay " On Denoting " has been considered a "paradigm of philosophy". [7] His work has had a considerable influence on logic , mathematics , set theory , linguistics , artificial intelligence , computer science (see type theory and type system ), and philosophy , especially philosophy of language , epistemology , and metaphysics .

  Now, ofcourse since you are coming from the point of view the intellectual dead-end of repeatly asking people for their definitions of common words like "flat" rather than having a normal conversation is a philosophical goldmine, and that telling people again and again, context be damned, they dont have any facts (all while hypocritically calling your own oppinion a fact at other times) is something praiseworthy, I can understand why you might be inclined to think Russell was a bit of a hack.

  When the best arguments against something people can come up with are that they don't like its implications, then dare I say it, we may be onto something worthy of the name truth.

  This is not the best argument against your position, it is simply Bertrand Russell skewing a certain view with a wit and clear sight I think make him one of the best technical writers of the past century.

  More to the point, I cant tell what your position is at all since you have never been arsed to state it in ordinary english. To the best of my ability, your position is entirely that of picking the nit the word "fact" should not be used because there is a certain strict interpretation of the word which create logical problems in conjuction to the way it is commonly used.