Why do I find Bertrand Russell's writings so appealing and valid?

>>9346736
You're expecting me to say "because you're from Reddit", don't you?

>>9346736
Because he's usually right

>>9346736
his cuckery speaks to your inner faggot

>>9346736
I unironically like Russell, but he was a bit of a pleb. And not just because he didn't get Nietzsche or Bergson or because of Godel.

Because you are either being paid for shilling him or a mere piece of software inside a computer.

>>9346736
I like Russell because he has such an incredibly strong character. Regardless of whether you agree with his ideas or not, you can probably agree with me on that. He's like the epitome of a proper British Pipe-smoking Intellectual.

I also love the stance he took against Nuclear Weapons Proliferation.

>>9346756
His lecture on Nietzsche is so woefully mistaken it actually made me do a double take. How an intellectual of his repute can't divorce himself from political proclivities to comprehensively approach a work you intend to translate/explain to others is staggering.

>>9346752
>tfw read his Conquest of Happiness before learning he used to watch his wife get fucked by other men as did his father
It was a strange feeling as he seemed reasonable at the time.

>>9346766
You are attracted to an intellectual because of.his physical appearance?

>>9346736
Because:

-You're probably American/anglo
-You have read less than 100 philosophy works, probably not even 30
-You are not very intelligent
-You are in your 20's (this doesn't mean much, but it's true)

>>9346804
3/4. That hurts.

>>9346804
/lit/ is mostly Anglo yet leans toward continental philosophy

>>9346736

He was a clear logical writer, unlike many obscurant hacks.

>>9346736
You meant appalling and vapid, right?

>>9346782
And voice and demeanor, yeah.

>>9346868
That's masculine af. Would fugg.

>>9346859
Too bad his entire life's work was done in by a basic logical error and he spent the rest of it writing shallow pop-histories of philosophy.

File: 1482881388348.jpg (12KB, 239x223px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 239x223px

Just curious, why all this hate on him, guys?

>>9346771
link?

what did he say that was wrong in your opinion?

>>9346898
because he is a hack who constantly jerks off to mathematics

>>9346898
He personally contributed nothing to philosophy as everything he wrote was disproven mathematically within his lifetime. He then proceeded to talk shit on authors he didn't understand until he died. The only thing he did that could arguably be seen as worthwhile is tutoring Wittgenstein, but ol' Witty ended up disavowing all of the work he did under Russell.

>>9346874
>>9346911
>>9346918
>the only work Russell did was Principia Mathematica

Can someone redpill me of Russell's humanitarian writings? That's supposedly what won him the Nobel.

>>9346924
Name one thing he wrote before Principia that was non-trivial and hasn't been disproved, or one after that isn't a pseud-pandering money grab.

Do you guys like "Why I Am Not a Christian"? He's pretty cool here.

>>9346910
https://youtu.be/oTZHOaaxUZE
he completely misunderstands the aesthetic described, has no apprepciation for the subtlteties involved and basically falls into the Nietzsche is a Nazi camp

Dude, 'On Denoting' is one of the most clear and concise pieces of philosophy I've ever read.

>>9346898

He has an irrational hatred for medieval philosophy and he's a literal cuck.

>Russell's marriage to Dora grew increasingly tenuous, and it reached a breaking point over her having two children with an American journalist, Griffin Barry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell

LMAO

He was destroyed by Lacan and his gang:


>You will see there that by questioning things from the angle of this pure logic, Bertrand Russell conceives of language as a superimposition, a scaffolding, an indeterminate number of metalanguages. Each propositional level is subordinated to the control or to the correction of a higher-order proposition, where it is put in question as a first proposition […]. I think that this work, like any other by Bertrand Russell, is exemplary, in the fact that taking to its final term what I would call the very possibility of a metalanguage, he shows its absurdity precisely in the following: that the fundamental affirmation from which we begin here, and without which there would not be, in effect, any problem about the relationships between language and thought, between language and the subject, is the fact that there is no metalanguage. Every approach including structural linguistics is secondary, at a loss, compared to the first and pure use of language. Every logical development, whatever it may be, presumes at the origin the language from which it is detached […]. Mr. Bertrand Russell, to compose his language, made up of the scaffolding, of the Babel-like edifice of metalanguages, one on top of the other, thought that there must be a foundation; so he invented object-language. There must be a level, unfortunately nobody is able to grasp it, where language is in itself pure object. I defy you to put forward a single conjunction of signifiers which could have that function (2nd session, 9 December 1964, 13).

>tfw when just got A History of Western Phil in the mail and am enjoying it

D-did I get memed on

>>9347251
You got memed my mate.

>>9347251
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpGO2VTksIw

>>9347251
The ironic thing is that the E.S. Haldane translation of the Lectures on the History of Philosophy by Hegel is actually superior and Russell would have written a history which was far better if he read it.