Philosophy Now Forum

It was BR's birthday yesterday and I've been looking into his life and influence again.

Was he much of philosopher? What did he bring philosophically beside his analytical style. Was his true talent really as historian?

Watching a clip on you tube as per his views on Nietzsche, I felt he was talking more about someone like Freud, who was mired in his own subconscious drives and fetishes to a greater extent than was Nietzsche. He seemed incomprehensive of Nietzsche in an arrogant sort of way.

Did Russell, as the quintessential Englishman he was, have even the wherewithal to pursue philosophy beyond political philosophy, which in the end proves to be pseudo-philosophy in my books (for the reason that there are too many agendas pulling at the thinkers mind to allow the deep insights that characterizes a good philosophy)?

I'm no great fan of BR but this query is bizarre.

Can I suggest that you read the wikipedia entry on BR and then start again?

Top be honest I don't the English have ever been forced into deep questioning, even with WW2.

To be more honest, the whole of western philosophy to date has proved to be little more than a mimicry. That is not to say that as individuals we can be well grounded in our own personal philosophy, but as far as Western philosophy being effective as a binding force within Western culture I believe it still has the best ahead of it. The ground work is there.

Look at Socrates unsuccessfully seeking a wise man, or Nietzsche having to invent a Persian mouthpiece to help give his philosophy a sense of validity.

The same could be said of Western art; a lot of individual skill and soul, but little in the way of a consistent and strongly identifiable cultural force and character... little soul.

I think we understand each other. You started talking about BR and now we have bombastic pronouncements about the state of Western philosophy. There are others on this forum that will be more than happy to engage with you in this manner but not I. Bye!

Good call. It would have been good to hear a little of your thoughts on BR. Too Bad.

Bernard wrote:It was BR's birthday yesterday and I've been looking into his life and influence again.

Was he much of philosopher? What did he bring philosophically beside his analytical style. Was his true talent really as historian?

Watching a clip on you tube as per his views on Nietzsche, I felt he was talking more about someone like Freud, who was mired in his own subconscious drives and fetishes to a greater extent than was Nietzsche. He seemed incomprehensive of Nietzsche in an arrogant sort of way.

Did Russell, as the quintessential Englishman he was, have even the wherewithal to pursue philosophy beyond political philosophy, which in the end proves to be pseudo-philosophy in my books (for the reason that there are too many agendas pulling at the thinkers mind to allow the deep insights that characterizes a good philosophy)?

He was one of two people who independently came up with what's now known as Russell's paradox nearly simultaneously - the other being Ernst Zermelo. There can be no set that contains all sets that don't contain themselves.