[Wittrs] Fwd: Re: Is Russell Overrated?
- From: kirby urner <kirby.urner@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 15:10:46 -0800
Many schools of thought as to "where we are today". I'd go with
Wittgenstein's formulation: that logic "underpins" mathematics in the same
way a painted foundation underpins a painted castle (RFM).
From my standpoint, Russell is enduring because of his wrestling with the
"real world" issues of the day, such as whether to fight Hitler or to
retreat into the isolationism of post-WW1.
He took ethical positions.
I don't think most hyper-specialists practicing today have anything close to
his courage and wouldn't call them "philosophers" for the most part (I don't
accept self-labeling as veridical, only time will tell).
British philosophy in general was more creditable back then, when there were
still the remnants of a 113 year-old empire.
American analytic schools have no such gravitas, and indeed were undermined
by the later Wittgenstein.
The "American empire" has mostly midgets who bask in reflected light.
Kirby
Other related posts:
- » [Wittrs] Fwd: Re: Is Russell Overrated? - kirby urner
