First thought: OMG, thought he died a while back. Bertie's comments are well-intentioned but somewhat naive. If the first comment is taken as opposed to looking as issues in ideologically-driven terms, and of stressing the importance of seeking "the truth" irrespective of wishful thinking and self or group interests etc., then it is not only well-intentioned but important; but Russell's expression of his POV is quite naive - for example, in thinking that "facts" determine or "bear out" the "truth" - this may or may not be true, depending for example on whether the range of what we admit as "facts" is co-terminous with the range of "truth". For example, is it true that there is a God? True or false, what "facts" could determine it aside from the "fact" 'God exists' or 'God doesn't exist' - in which case the "fact" would constitute the "truth" but would not determine the "truth" in the sense of being evidence of it - for the fact "God exists" [or "God doesn't exist"] is not evidence that it is true "God exists" [or "God doesn't exist"]. But then Russell could suggest as late as 1945 that what distinguished science was that its concern was the probable and the proveable - a formulation vulnerable to all kinds of objection, including Popper's critique that the distinguishing feature of scientific claims is their improbability and disproveability [i.e. falsifiability]. It would seem that some kind of mistaken and somewhat naive theory of knowledge is at work in Russell's suggestion we can determine the "truth" simply by looking at the so-called "facts" which "bear out" the truth. It's not as simple as that sounds. It would be more accurate to say that we should critically examine claims as to their truth, and to do this properly we should search for "facts" or evidence that might challenge their truth rather than simply rest content on "facts" that might seem to "bear out" their truth. Truth is not so easy to come by, or so manifest, as Russell might be taken to suggest. That we should not look at the social benefits of claims but only at their "truth" is also somewhat naive, both intellectually and morally. The moral "Love is wise, hatred is foolish" is also one that is open to challenge [starting with whether it is some claim testable by "facts" or offered more as an unfalsifiable platitude, albeit one perhaps from the side of the angels or those who write greetings cards]. Though quite clearly Russell's emphasis on tolerance and the need to avoid to violence, so we live together "and not die together", may be applauded, it may be argued that entwining issues of "tolerance" and "love" is a recipe for both moral and intellectual disaster, for "love" is no sane basis for "tolerance" as we must tolerate what we do not love. ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt I ________________________________ From: Julie Krueger <juliereneb@xxxxxxxxx> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 22:25 Subject: [lit-ideas] Bertrand Russell http://www.upworthy.com/this-speech-is-the-reason-my-time-machine-is-permanently-set-to-1959?c=ufb1 Julie Campbell Julie's Music & Language Studio 1215 W. Worley Columbia, MO 65203 573-881-6889 http://www.facebook.com/JuliesMusicLanguageStudio