Was he wrong about literally everything after all?

I don't get it. What's wrong with him?

You know Bertrand, I'm quite fond of your work dismantling the so called "naive set theory." You'll be happy to note that I've found some holes in your "naive PM 'formalism' " and I'll be interested to hear your thoughts on it!

he said schopenhauer doesn't practice what he preaches because he enjoys music and goes to concerts.

Has anyone on the planet actually read the principia mathematica in its entirety in the last fifty years? I mean, seriously read and understand it? Does there exist a version of the principia in modern notation?

most people would take that to mean "not in so many words"

>invents a prime language as if it were a rhetorical exercise.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."

that's pretty good desu

Didn't Schopenhauer say music was the highest form of expression?

That is quite a misrepresentation actually. First of all, saying Christianity invented the calendar and was responsible for the discovery of lunar eclipses would be retarded, secondly, the exact quote is about religion in general, not just Christianity, and thirdly, the exact quote is more ambiguous, it doesn't outright declare that nothing else that came from religion was valuable. desu it sounds like user is just a triggered Christian.

Is this thread filled with butthurt religionfags?

I do believe he was the first person to publish his deconstruction of the official JFK assassination story. I didn't find this out till about a year ago, so I suspect it was deliberately buried by the press.

22november1963.org.uk/bertrand-russell-16-questions-on-the-assassination

I was skimming through the book Can Man Live Without God by Ravi Zacharias, and came across this section.

>All this nonwithstanding, Bertrand Russell was a genius, and it is terribly unfortunate that a mind as capable as his sank into frivolous arguments revealing more his prejudices than his intellect. For example, he stated in his diatribe against Christianity that as far as he knew Christianity had only produced two good things: first, the calendar, and second, that it was an Egyptian priest who first noted the lunar eclipse. "Other than that," he said, "I see no good having come out of Christianity."

Looks like it really is true when they say you can't believe everything you read. I should have Googled it. But now, I will never forgive Ravi Zacharias. God, I should've known not to bother with modern Christian apologetics.

All threads on this board are.

Hmmmmm. But one other thing. The quote does not cut off at "These two services I am prepared to acknowledge." It ends with "These two services I am prepared to acknowledge, but I do not know of any others."
update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/has_reli.htm
I'll read through the link above, but I still think Russell was being a little ridiculous to suggest that those are the only two useful contributions religion has made to civilization.

I read the first volume. It's the most boring thing I've ever read.

>Does there exist a version of the principia in modern notation?
I don't think so. There is a guide for the notation though. I haven't read it, I wish I read it as a child (would be great for forming one's mind with clarity and mathematical aptitude).

He was a mathematician and his biggest work was basically shattered by another mathematician, so he fell back onto philosophy

Extremely intelligent man though

I own a complete copy and I sincerely wish to actually do this before I die. My interests are specifically in the history of mathematics, and pure "because it's there" autism.

When I was majoring in math and minoring in history and philosophy in college days, I was taken aback by the impenetrable phone-book (and frankly very ugly) notation of the university's copy. I found the meme-bit about how 1+1=2 before the internet caught onto it. Let's just say that it fascinated me.

I have both Russell's IMP and the little Godel proof-book, but it's back-burner now. Also relevant would seem to be Whitehead's philosophy, which I know almost nothing about.

I believe, in an ideal world, that if I were to do a good enough job of reading the book, I could contribute a slim "reading PM" book to the world, to spare others the trouble. Also there are actually fairly detailed wiki pages on the notation so clearly one or two other autists have taken the time.

that was really interesting, thank you

Not at all, his theory of definite descriptions is still one of the largest theories on naming in philosophy of language. It wasnt really until Kripke' Naming and Necessity that you had a serious push back

That could turn out wrong as well of course. The funny thing is, his failures have done more for philosophy than any "success" you could point to in an opposing camp, for example some member of whatever definition you want for continental philosophy

You simply cant get through an education in philosophy without coming into formal logic and Russell is one of if not the person responsible for its spread. You can get through an education in philosophy without encountering any given continental philosopher or their work

I actually read the greentext in his voice for some reason