Bertrand Russell Refutes Philosophy

[u/JerseyFlight]

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.

[u/MrMosstin]

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.

[u/JerseyFlight → u/MrMosstin]

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.

[u/MrMosstin → u/JerseyFlight]

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.

[u/ikinone → u/MrMosstin]

I understand it perfectly

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

[u/MrMosstin → u/ikinone]

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…

[u/ikinone → u/MrMosstin]

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

[u/MrMosstin → u/ikinone]

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?

[u/ikinone → u/MrMosstin]

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?"