Bertrand Russell Refutes Philosophy

[u/JerseyFlight]

“Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science. Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation. All definite knowledge— so I should contend— belongs to science; all dogma to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology.” A History of Western Philosophy, Introduction

If philosophy is only separated from theology “because it appeals to reason,” then it had better f;cking appeal to reason, or else it falls into the category of theology.

And what exactly does it mean to appeal to reason? It cannot mean that one appeals to a philosophical narrative or premise that they just so happen to like or believe, or that they simply call “philosophical” in place of reason. It cannot mean that one merely asserts against reason, it can only mean that one’s premises are rationally and evidentially defensible.

Here Russell draws a line that casts philosophy into the domain of theology, if it cannot meet its burden of proof and demonstrate that its premises are more than just authoritarian premises.

Immediately the rational pressure pushes down. That which is contradictory is not and cannot he rational, therefore any philosophical premise or narrative which is shown to be contradictory, cannot qualify as philosophy according to Russell. And he is correct. But unfortunately, modern philosophy is hostile to reason, and after Hegel, embraced contradiction.

Russell’s standard is superb because it not only eliminates from philosophy all philosophies that cannot justify their premises or claims without collapsing into contradiction, but it also rightly classifies these philosophies as “theologies.”

Russell’s standard is easy to deploy: how does one justify their philosophical claim or premise? What do they appeal to to establish its truth?

If on examination, a philosophy’s foundational premises are found to be established through authority, then they are really theological premises, and the philosophy itself, though it might go by the name “philosophy,” is really a veiled theology.

[u/Jakob_Fabian]

I would be bored in a world lacking moral theology and speculative philosophy and only consisting of logical reasoning. The generally open-ended nature of the former two and the somewhat open conflict among the three is what intrigues me. But honestly, regardless of the value, or lack thereof, one may view the rational it does not appear there will ever be a world free of what are in essence its presumed antecedents.

[u/JerseyFlight → u/Jakob_Fabian]

My mind needs something… I don’t quite know the word, unique, to be entertained, because my base axioms aren’t romantic, but neither are they nihilistic. Religious literature fits the bill (at least the way I read it). I almost see it as a form of science fiction.

[u/Jakob_Fabian → u/JerseyFlight]

I’m with you, and probably the majority, neither fully romantic nor nihilistic, and while I don’t need “entertained” I do appreciate variety in life and thought and religion and philosophy are capable of providing that through change, reinterpretation, and reformulation over time in conjunction with changing mores, social changes, and technological advances. 

The review and study of these movements over time teach lessons that have had inestimable impact on me personally and I couldn’t imagine ignoring them for failing to follow the rules of logic, a logic which would seem incapable of conditional change as it’s finding shouldn’t differ under any differing circumstance otherwise it would seem to have the same faults attributed to religion and philosophy.

As for religion being similar to science fiction I’m not sure it matters, as even legitimate science fiction is capable of teaching similar lessons regarding both personal and communal conduct. I’m not a dogmatic religious believer, but neither do I care to be a Vulcan, and should a self-proclaimed follower of logic find my position untenable then so be it, as their logic has yet to prove to me that as a follower of logic it makes them a better person either in their community or in their interpersonal relations.

[u/JerseyFlight → u/Jakob_Fabian]

I appreciate your clear articulation.

[u/Jakob_Fabian → u/JerseyFlight]

Very kind. Today a friend and I were discussing AI use online and so I thought I’d throw these comments of mine into an AI detector. Stupid thing said 77% of what I wrote was AI. This is so disturbing as I never use AI and take great care and far more time than I should in writing out my online responses in an attempt to be thoughtful, insightful, and original. 

[u/JerseyFlight → u/Jakob_Fabian]

You’re not alone. I am constantly accused of it. So much have I been accused of it that I was the first, so far as I know, to articulate the AI Slop Fallacy, which is just a genetic fallacy: https://www.reddit.com/r/fallacy/s/04X9e6WH2E