I’d heard about that debate but had never heard or read it before. I had the impression third-hand that Russell won, but having read it myself, I can’t for the life of me see why. Russell asserts a lot and seems willing to accept an awful lot as brute fact, and he’s just punting the problem with Belsen when he tries to shift it to effects (why say the effects are bad? Aren’t we back to feelings again? And how does one decide whose feelings turn the deal? Is it a majority, a preponderance, what?) His approach works better with Copleston’s attempt to explain the ineffability of mystic experience, but even then all he does is prevent Copleston from moving forward by offering alternative explanations which he doesn’t really establish as the most likely or only reasonable option. Finally, his opinion that the sense of “ought” we gets stems pretty much entirely from early maternal authority (or just authority in general) seems pretty simplistic to me. I’m not nearly as impressed as I expected to be.
Whatever merit one attributes to this debate, one must acknowledge Russell’s line as one of the best in the annals of philosophical debate: “I don’t want to seem arrogant, but it does seem to me that I can conceive things that you say the human mind can’t conceive.”
Wow…did that take me back.
Nice find.
Comment :: Wednesday, 9 May 2007 @ 111:05 PM
“…would you say that the non-existence of God can be proved?”
One can never be asked to prove a negative.
(Now I’ll read the rest of it after some coffee.)
Comment :: Thursday, 10 May 2007 @ 29:03 AM
I’d heard about that debate but had never heard or read it before. I had the impression third-hand that Russell won, but having read it myself, I can’t for the life of me see why. Russell asserts a lot and seems willing to accept an awful lot as brute fact, and he’s just punting the problem with Belsen when he tries to shift it to effects (why say the effects are bad? Aren’t we back to feelings again? And how does one decide whose feelings turn the deal? Is it a majority, a preponderance, what?) His approach works better with Copleston’s attempt to explain the ineffability of mystic experience, but even then all he does is prevent Copleston from moving forward by offering alternative explanations which he doesn’t really establish as the most likely or only reasonable option. Finally, his opinion that the sense of “ought” we gets stems pretty much entirely from early maternal authority (or just authority in general) seems pretty simplistic to me. I’m not nearly as impressed as I expected to be.
Comment :: Thursday, 10 May 2007 @ 39:06 AM
Whatever merit one attributes to this debate, one must acknowledge Russell’s line as one of the best in the annals of philosophical debate: “I don’t want to seem arrogant, but it does seem to me that I can conceive things that you say the human mind can’t conceive.”
Comment :: Thursday, 10 May 2007 @ 43:01 PM
Russell was a great writer, which is why he won the Nobel Prize for Literature. Here are some of his pithy sayings.
Comment :: Thursday, 10 May 2007 @ 53:20 PM
I will grant that; I’ve run into Bertrand Russell aphorisms for years. Don’t always agree with them, but they are remarkable penetrating and succinct.
Comment :: Thursday, 10 May 2007 @ 64:59 PM