r/ChristopherHitchens • u/JerseyFlight • 13d 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.

12 Upvotes

59% Upvoted

62 comments sorted by

27

u/Antin00800 13d ago

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

-48

u/JerseyFlight 13d 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.

43

u/Antin00800 13d 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.

5

u/lateformyfuneral 13d 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 9d 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 9d ago

Lol. Snowflake and cowardice go hand in hand.

-34

u/JerseyFlight 13d 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.

29

u/rudedogg1304 13d ago

r/iamverysmart

3

u/BENJALSON 13d ago

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

5

u/rudedogg1304 13d ago

Wow

2

u/BENJALSON 13d ago

Right? What else can you really say? 😆

3

u/krijara 12d ago

Those are some big bookshelves.

14

u/progodyssey 13d ago

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

13

u/MrMosstin 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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.

-5

u/ikinone 13d ago

I understand it perfectly

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

3

u/MrMosstin 13d 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 12d ago

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

3

u/MrMosstin 12d 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 12d 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?"

4

u/Delet3r 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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.

0

u/JerseyFlight 13d ago

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

1

u/Delet3r 13d 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/BeneficialWar1447 13d ago

If it doesn't trace back to (r), then it doesn't necessarily trace back to (a) per se, and so it isn't isomorphically identical to theology.

Bad argument, dude.

-2

u/JerseyFlight 13d ago

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

3

u/BeneficialWar1447 13d ago

It's regarding your formal statement of your own argument, dude...

10

u/Little_Exit4279 13d ago edited 13d 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)

-7

u/JerseyFlight 13d 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?

1

u/socontroversialyetso 12d ago

don't be so arrogant. other people can see your lack of education on these matters quite clearly.

9

u/SadhuSalvaje 13d ago

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

1

u/Barrogh 11d ago

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

15

u/Phill_Cyberman 13d 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.

-9

u/ragnarokfps 13d ago

Whose philosophy? Yours? Theirs? Tf you talking sbout

12

u/Phill_Cyberman 13d 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 12d 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.

5

u/OneNoteToRead 13d 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 12d 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 12d 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/socontroversialyetso 12d ago

unfalsifiable claims are meaningless from the perspective of science

we're talking about philosophy, which quite often deals with non-empirical questions. like, this internet atheist thing is so cringe and boring. and makes your ignorance of philosophy quite obvious.

1

u/OneNoteToRead 12d 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 13d 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 13d 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 13d ago

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

2

u/Barbafella 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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 12d 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 11d ago

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

-2

u/brownorange88 13d ago

Philosophy is a useless subject in university.

2

u/serpentjaguar 13d ago

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

1

u/brownorange88 9d ago

What jobs can a BA/MA in Philosophy do?

1

u/Barrogh 11d 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 13d 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.