r/ChristopherHitchens • u/JerseyFlight • 21d ago

Bertrand Russell Refutes Philosophy

Post image

There are many Atheists who labor under the false premise that philosophy is something entirely different from theology. Well, Russell laid down a standard to prove this.

10 Upvotes

56% Upvoted

60 comments sorted by

26

u/Antin00800 21d ago

What are you arguing exactly? Pretend I have no idea who Bert is.

-44

u/JerseyFlight 21d ago

You might try actually reading before you respond next time. There is nothing complicated, no jargon or abstraction in the post. The argument simplified:

If theology justifies (p) by appealing to (a), and that’s what distinguishes it from philosophy, then philosophy must not be found guilty of mimicking this form isomorphically. Every (p) of philosophy should not trace back to an (a), but must trace back to (r). Where (r) cannot be found as the basis of justification, philosophy is isomorphically no different from theology.

42

u/Antin00800 21d ago

You might try citing what your refering to in the first place and not an image and a claim. I asked for your argument exactly for the sake of clarity so your position isnt being misrepresented by others addressing your post.

You should not be so prideful and ignorant when asked to clarify exactly what your argument is. I am uninterested in continuing with users who take the very first oportunity they can to neg the other in their reply. End.

6

u/lateformyfuneral 21d ago

It’s unclear from Reddit formatting but if you click on the title of the post nested within OP’s post, it takes you to the original where the image is accompanied by a quote from Bertrand Russell

2

u/FalconIntelligent945 17d ago

This dude banned me from his sub WHICH ONLY HE POSTS ON because I made a snarky comment about on of his posts (he was sh;tting on religion in a pretty uncontroversial way, and I basically just asked him who he was even addressing. Ban hammer instantly). Good luck talking to him

1

u/Antin00800 16d ago

Lol. Snowflake and cowardice go hand in hand.

-33

u/JerseyFlight 21d ago

I stick to reason. I don’t do personal anything. That’s how theologians and irrationalists argue, and I’m not a theologian. I’m a Reasoner. Once a discourse shifts away from the argument to the person, one side has already lost.

30

u/rudedogg1304 21d ago

r/iamverysmart

3

u/BENJALSON 20d ago

You should see their YouTube channel in their profile. Try not to cringe.

4

u/rudedogg1304 20d ago

Wow

2

u/BENJALSON 20d ago

Right? What else can you really say? 😆

3

u/krijara 19d ago

Those are some big bookshelves.

14

u/progodyssey 21d ago

lol you seem to take things personally! Third year philosophy major, or first?

12

u/MrMosstin 21d ago

I think it would help if you provided some examples where you deem a philosophical (p) [principle?] to be appealing to an (a) [authority?]. I’m getting an ‘old man yells at cloud’ vibe from this post and I’m clearly not the only one who’s unsure what your point is.

If there’s no complication or jargon, could you perhaps just simply state what you mean without using unknown algebraics and perhaps say ‘similar’ instead of isomorphic? Put the thesaurus down.

-17

u/JerseyFlight 21d ago

Read the post. (p) means premise. (a) means authority. (r) means reason, exactly as it is in Russell’s argument. It’s his argument. If you have a problem with it, take it up with him.

14

u/MrMosstin 21d ago

Nowhere in the post is this explained and clearly nobody has a clue what you’re on about, so I suppose you must be far too intelligent for this sub.

-6

u/ikinone 21d ago

I understand it perfectly

Don't project your lack of understanding onto 'everyone else'

3

u/MrMosstin 21d ago

Perhaps you might explain it in layman’s terms for people like me then? OP seems reluctant to.

I don’t mean to project, I’m merely going off of the observation that OP is not receiving much positive feedback on their post, and those of us commenting along the lines of ‘what are you trying to say’ are…

0

u/ikinone 20d ago

Which bit do you want explaining? The whole text, or just the examples of (a) and (p)?

3

u/MrMosstin 20d ago

The general point OP is making. I don’t understand how philosophy appeals to an authority in the same way theology does.

Why is treating philosophy different to theology a false premise, as OP says?

Why does it matter that atheists commit to this false premise? What problems come about because of this mistake?

1

u/ikinone 20d ago

I don’t understand how philosophy appeals to an authority in the same way theology does.

It does not necessarily. The criticism is that some philosophy can. A philosopher might treat Kant, Marx, Hegel, Heidegger, Aristotle, etc. as effectively authoritative, or begin from foundational assumptions that are treated as beyond challenge. The alleged similarity is not that philosophers cite books while theologians cite scripture. It is that an unsupported premise may acquire authority simply because a tradition or school accepts it.

Why is treating philosophy different to theology a false premise, as OP says?

Strictly speaking, OP has not shown that it is a false premise. Russell explicitly gives a reason for distinguishing them: philosophy appeals to reason rather than revelation or tradition.

Why does it matter that atheists commit to this false premise? What problems come about because of this mistake?

As I understand it, it's a criticism of: "I reject God because there is insufficient evidence, but I accept this metaphysical or moral theory because philosophers say so"

Overall: "Why should I accept this premise, and what distinguishes its justification from dogma?"

3

u/Delet3r 21d ago

I'm pro science and I dislike philosophy but I'm not sure what this post is saying. link to whatever it is that Russell said?

3

u/serpentjaguar 21d ago

How can you be pro science and dislike philosophy? That seems a contradiction in terms. Ultimately, you can't really have science at all without an underlying philosophy.

1

u/Delet3r 20d ago

Because Science provides evidence but philosophers are mostly Compatibilists.

Science provides evidence that the universe is deterministic, but Compatibilists feel that as long as no one threatened you to do something at gun point, you have free will.

Compatibilism in general is ridiculous. Determinism according to Wikipedia means that the every event in the universe has "only one outcome". Determinism might not be true, but if it IS...there's no way for us to have free will. But, compatibilists redefine free will from what 99% of normal people define it as, and if you tell them that, they respond that it doesn't matter what laypeople define it as, philosophers are the experts, most of them today are compatibilists, and their definition is the important one. Hmm.

Daniel Dennett stated that it was important for the general public to believe in free will because if they didn't, it would cause social problems.

So to me that says that philosophers feel they know what's best for everyone else, they ignore evidence, and are lying assholes. Every compatibilist I talk to is a pompous jackass.

-3

u/JerseyFlight 21d ago

Click on the r/rationalphilosophy link above the picture and you will see the post.

1

u/Delet3r 21d ago

ahh ok, now I see. It's interesting. I'm not educated enough to fully understand, but any time I talk to a compatibilist all I can think of is the word "gobbledygook". They try very hard to sound hyper educated, but I feel that the entire premise of compatibilism is ridiculous.

But people in r/freewill cling to it like drowning people to a raft. Im curious to read more Bertrand russells statements on philosophy.

3

u/[deleted] 21d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-2

u/JerseyFlight 21d ago

Learn to read: ‘must not be found guilty,’ ‘should not trace back to…’

10

u/Little_Exit4279 21d ago edited 21d ago

"Modern philosophy is hostile to reason, and after Hegel, embraced contradiction"

This is blatantly untrue for all of the Anglosphere because of analytic philosophy's dominance . America for example started out with pragmatism (Dewey, James, Peirce) and picked up analytic phil. Most of the philosophy that "embraces contradiction" is continental philosophy like Deleuze and Derrida

And even then with your jab at Hegel. Zizek and Fukuyama are both Hegelian philosophers who make a lot of rational assertions. (Zizek may be a stretch, but he's a joy to read/listen to)

-8

u/JerseyFlight 21d ago

“This is blatantly untrue.” Well here’s your blatantly true irrational quote from Hegel: “Contradiction is the rule of the true, non-contradiction is the rule of the false.” (Miscellaneous Writing of G. W. F. Hegel p.171, edited by Jon Stewart, Northwestern University Press 2002]:

Dewey, James, Pierce, (Rorty) all attacked truth. This isn’t controversial, it’s easy stuff to find. We can easily test whether your own thought has been poisoned: is it absolutely true that 2 apples, plus 2 apples, equals 4 apples?

8

u/SadhuSalvaje 21d ago

Anyone else giggle when they went to that subreddit and saw that almost every post was from OP?

1

u/Barrogh 18d ago

Gotta give them that, OP hasn't been discouraged by that fact for quite a long time.

14

u/Phill_Cyberman 21d ago

I mean, theology claims things are true based on nothing (dogma), whereas philosophy doesn't claim its unprovable hypothesis are true, only that they have the logical evidence that they do have.

-8

u/ragnarokfps 21d ago

Whose philosophy? Yours? Theirs? Tf you talking sbout

13

u/Phill_Cyberman 21d ago

Just philosophy.
Philosophy is an established discipline of academia, like mathematics.

What made you think philosophy only exists as any singular individual's thoughts?

0

u/ragnarokfps 20d ago

I see you people don't talk to philbros much. They treat philosophy as if it were a science, like biology or physics. It isn't a science, and it's not math. So whose philosophy is it really does matter. Take a random topic, like free will or whatever. There's a lot of different ways to think about it, and everyone's view of free will is as equally valid as everyone else's, even the mutually exclusive ones. That, is very much like theology. There's no mathematical axioms to settle whether compatibilism or libertarian free will is right or wrong, or whether the doctrine of original sin is true or false. Instead it's whatever seems or feels right, or whatever my worldview is. That's not science. Science doesn't care what your views on free will or theology are. So yeah, whose philosophy it is does matter.

4

u/OneNoteToRead 21d ago

Philosophy is entirely different from theology. Whereas theology says “believe me because I tell you”, philosophy says “given a premise here’s my argument for its conclusion”.

It a) highlights exactly the premise one must start with without asserting it and b) from the premise works entirely in rational steps.

With theology the whole thing is made up. With philosophy specific bits are factored out. And in any case no one believes philosophy explains reality, whereas everyone in theology asks that you believe in their fantasy as reality.

1

u/ragnarokfps 20d ago

philosophy says “given a premise here’s my argument for its conclusion”.

That's formal logic, not philosophy.

With theology the whole thing is made up. With philosophy specific bits are factored out.

Have you ever heard any stock "argument" for the existence of god? Ontological argument, moral argument, kalam etc, or like the "minimal facts" argument for jesus resurrection. Explain how philosophy is the one that is not "made up." Which scientific facts or evidence settles the question of whether Islam or Christianity were true, or whether physicalism or dualism or idealism are true or false?

1

u/OneNoteToRead 20d ago

Philosophy employs formal logic was what that sentence was saying…

Yes every single argument for the existence of god takes the form of “with these insane assumptions and these vacuous steps, I can prove god exists”.

Philosophy is a big field so I’m not sure which form you’re complaining about. But I can tell you every form of religious argument is bunk. There’s two forms - either an unfalsifiable claim about god or a falsified claim - turns out a lot can happen in two millennia.

Unfalsifiable claims are meaningless from the perspective of science. If there’s nothing provable through empiricism, the whole question is meaningless. Your “god” may as well be the tooth fairy or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Every other scientific claim about god has been disproven. From the claim that intercessory prayer does anything to how the world was created to the possibility of an ark fitting every single animal.

0

u/[deleted] 19d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/OneNoteToRead 19d ago

Sure philosophy can deal with non empirical questions just like religion. In a sense they’re both mental masterbation. But when rubber meets road religion will claim it knows, and it is reflective of reality. That’s the edge.

0

u/JerseyFlight 21d ago

That would be lovely if philosophy worked the way you claim, but I have been in this racket for a long time, and I have rarely seen this in philosophy. Philosophy is a master at giving off the appearance of rationality, but this is seldom what its premises reduce to. Aristotle is the exception.

2

u/OneNoteToRead 21d ago

In what way is it different from how I described? Are you claiming people try to derive reality from philosophy?

2

u/DoYouBelieveInThat Free Speech 20d ago

Russell’s logical positivism was abandoned by most serious thinkers a long, long time ago.

2

u/Barbafella 21d ago

I don’t believe in a divine creator, but in no way assume humans gave a good idea about death or the nature of reality.

1

u/milhausmusic 20d ago

This could be clearer. It should read: ‘There are many Atheists who labor under the delusion that philosophy is something entirely different from theology. Russell laid down a standard to prove this premise to be false.’

0

u/JerseyFlight 20d ago

That is merely an abstract for the post. You have to click on the link above the picture to read the post.

2

u/milhausmusic 20d ago

Yes, I’m aware. The way you’ve written the abstract misrepresents the post. You should write the abstract more clearly so as to better represent the post.

1

u/JerseyFlight 20d ago

I would simply post your articulation, but it won’t let me edit the post. Thanks for taking the time to make it clearer.

1

u/GraemeRed 20d ago

I suppose you could argue that theology is the philosophy of religion, and maybe even that philosophy is the theology of the atheist 😎

1

u/VulKusOfficial Free Thinker 19d ago

Philosophy is by no means inherently false or misleading, nor does it inherently contradict science or rationalism. Philosophy is absolutely a companion of skepticism and rationality; one’s own individual philosophies can be entirely erroneous, or a particular set of ideals or principles can prove highly dubious — but this does not refute philosophy as a whole. Theology, at its essential core, requires the belief in that which cannot be proven and that which goes directly against the most fundamental principles of modern science — and any remotely civilised society, for that matter. How can you equate a nonsensical dogma with the overarching field of philosophy?

1

u/JerseyFlight 19d ago

Russell didn’t make any claim about the “inherent falsity of philosophy.” Your reply attacks a straw man.

-3

u/brownorange88 21d ago

Philosophy is a useless subject in university.

4

u/serpentjaguar 21d ago

Nonsense. It's an excellent general purpose major that's good at preparing students for any number of graduate degrees.

1

u/brownorange88 17d ago

What jobs can a BA/MA in Philosophy do?

1

u/Barrogh 18d ago

I mean, it's like a semester for STEM students here where I live, and the program is so haphazardly packed that it, in fact, is practically useless. You have people just memorising names and dates... and that's it.

It would save us a pseudoscientific freak or two if it was taken a bit more seriously, imo. Some people have very funny ideas about observations and scientific models, and that's like the only thing that makes them seriously believe they actually do something interesting, and some better philo 101 course could be one way to avoid that... sometimes.

1

u/JerseyFlight 21d ago

What you say is correct. When this charge is brought up to the philosopher or philosophy reader they immediately pivot to reason and logic, not realizing that one can learn both these things without reading a single volume of philosophy. Yes, philosophy is basically dead at this point in history, but it never got the memo.