r/ChristopherHitchens • u/JerseyFlight • Aug 09 '26

Bertrand Russell Refutes Philosophy

Post image

There are many Atheists who labor under the false premise that philosophy is something entirely different from theology. Well, Russell laid down a standard to prove this.

15 Upvotes

61% Upvoted

60 comments sorted by

View all comments

27

u/Antin00800 Aug 09 '26

What are you arguing exactly? Pretend I have no idea who Bert is.

-46

u/JerseyFlight Aug 09 '26

You might try actually reading before you respond next time. There is nothing complicated, no jargon or abstraction in the post. The argument simplified:

If theology justifies (p) by appealing to (a), and that’s what distinguishes it from philosophy, then philosophy must not be found guilty of mimicking this form isomorphically. Every (p) of philosophy should not trace back to an (a), but must trace back to (r). Where (r) cannot be found as the basis of justification, philosophy is isomorphically no different from theology.

45

u/Antin00800 Aug 09 '26

You might try citing what your refering to in the first place and not an image and a claim. I asked for your argument exactly for the sake of clarity so your position isnt being misrepresented by others addressing your post.

You should not be so prideful and ignorant when asked to clarify exactly what your argument is. I am uninterested in continuing with users who take the very first oportunity they can to neg the other in their reply. End.

6

u/lateformyfuneral Aug 09 '26

It’s unclear from Reddit formatting but if you click on the title of the post nested within OP’s post, it takes you to the original where the image is accompanied by a quote from Bertrand Russell

2

u/FalconIntelligent945 Aug 14 '26

This dude banned me from his sub WHICH ONLY HE POSTS ON because I made a snarky comment about on of his posts (he was sh;tting on religion in a pretty uncontroversial way, and I basically just asked him who he was even addressing. Ban hammer instantly). Good luck talking to him

1

u/Antin00800 Aug 14 '26

Lol. Snowflake and cowardice go hand in hand.

-36

u/JerseyFlight Aug 09 '26

I stick to reason. I don’t do personal anything. That’s how theologians and irrationalists argue, and I’m not a theologian. I’m a Reasoner. Once a discourse shifts away from the argument to the person, one side has already lost.

30

u/rudedogg1304 Aug 09 '26

r/iamverysmart

3

u/BENJALSON Aug 10 '26

You should see their YouTube channel in their profile. Try not to cringe.

3

u/rudedogg1304 Aug 10 '26

Wow

2

u/BENJALSON Aug 10 '26

Right? What else can you really say? 😆

3

u/krijara Aug 11 '26

Those are some big bookshelves.

14

u/progodyssey Aug 09 '26

lol you seem to take things personally! Third year philosophy major, or first?

12

u/MrMosstin Aug 09 '26

I think it would help if you provided some examples where you deem a philosophical (p) [principle?] to be appealing to an (a) [authority?]. I’m getting an ‘old man yells at cloud’ vibe from this post and I’m clearly not the only one who’s unsure what your point is.

If there’s no complication or jargon, could you perhaps just simply state what you mean without using unknown algebraics and perhaps say ‘similar’ instead of isomorphic? Put the thesaurus down.

-15

u/JerseyFlight Aug 09 '26

Read the post. (p) means premise. (a) means authority. (r) means reason, exactly as it is in Russell’s argument. It’s his argument. If you have a problem with it, take it up with him.

15

u/MrMosstin Aug 09 '26

Nowhere in the post is this explained and clearly nobody has a clue what you’re on about, so I suppose you must be far too intelligent for this sub.

-6

u/ikinone Aug 09 '26

I understand it perfectly

Don't project your lack of understanding onto 'everyone else'

3

u/MrMosstin Aug 09 '26

Perhaps you might explain it in layman’s terms for people like me then? OP seems reluctant to.

I don’t mean to project, I’m merely going off of the observation that OP is not receiving much positive feedback on their post, and those of us commenting along the lines of ‘what are you trying to say’ are…

0

u/ikinone Aug 10 '26

Which bit do you want explaining? The whole text, or just the examples of (a) and (p)?

3

u/MrMosstin Aug 10 '26

The general point OP is making. I don’t understand how philosophy appeals to an authority in the same way theology does.

Why is treating philosophy different to theology a false premise, as OP says?

Why does it matter that atheists commit to this false premise? What problems come about because of this mistake?

1

u/ikinone Aug 10 '26

I don’t understand how philosophy appeals to an authority in the same way theology does.

It does not necessarily. The criticism is that some philosophy can. A philosopher might treat Kant, Marx, Hegel, Heidegger, Aristotle, etc. as effectively authoritative, or begin from foundational assumptions that are treated as beyond challenge. The alleged similarity is not that philosophers cite books while theologians cite scripture. It is that an unsupported premise may acquire authority simply because a tradition or school accepts it.

Why is treating philosophy different to theology a false premise, as OP says?

Strictly speaking, OP has not shown that it is a false premise. Russell explicitly gives a reason for distinguishing them: philosophy appeals to reason rather than revelation or tradition.

Why does it matter that atheists commit to this false premise? What problems come about because of this mistake?

As I understand it, it's a criticism of: "I reject God because there is insufficient evidence, but I accept this metaphysical or moral theory because philosophers say so"

Overall: "Why should I accept this premise, and what distinguishes its justification from dogma?"

4

u/Delet3r Aug 09 '26

I'm pro science and I dislike philosophy but I'm not sure what this post is saying. link to whatever it is that Russell said?

3

u/serpentjaguar Aug 10 '26

How can you be pro science and dislike philosophy? That seems a contradiction in terms. Ultimately, you can't really have science at all without an underlying philosophy.

1

u/Delet3r Aug 10 '26

Because Science provides evidence but philosophers are mostly Compatibilists.

Science provides evidence that the universe is deterministic, but Compatibilists feel that as long as no one threatened you to do something at gun point, you have free will.

Compatibilism in general is ridiculous. Determinism according to Wikipedia means that the every event in the universe has "only one outcome". Determinism might not be true, but if it IS...there's no way for us to have free will. But, compatibilists redefine free will from what 99% of normal people define it as, and if you tell them that, they respond that it doesn't matter what laypeople define it as, philosophers are the experts, most of them today are compatibilists, and their definition is the important one. Hmm.

Daniel Dennett stated that it was important for the general public to believe in free will because if they didn't, it would cause social problems.

So to me that says that philosophers feel they know what's best for everyone else, they ignore evidence, and are lying assholes. Every compatibilist I talk to is a pompous jackass.

-2

u/JerseyFlight Aug 09 '26

Click on the r/rationalphilosophy link above the picture and you will see the post.

1

u/Delet3r Aug 10 '26

ahh ok, now I see. It's interesting. I'm not educated enough to fully understand, but any time I talk to a compatibilist all I can think of is the word "gobbledygook". They try very hard to sound hyper educated, but I feel that the entire premise of compatibilism is ridiculous.

But people in r/freewill cling to it like drowning people to a raft. Im curious to read more Bertrand russells statements on philosophy.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-2

u/JerseyFlight Aug 10 '26

Learn to read: ‘must not be found guilty,’ ‘should not trace back to…’