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

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)

3/4. That hurts.

Veeky Forums is mostly Anglo yet leans toward continental philosophy

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

You meant appalling and vapid, right?

And voice and demeanor, yeah.

That's masculine af. Would fugg.

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.

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

link?

what did he say that was wrong in your opinion?

because he is a hack who constantly jerks off to mathematics

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.

>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.

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.

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.

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
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

You got memed my mate.

youtube.com/watch?v=KpGO2VTksIw

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.

bump