Thoughts on Russell?

itt: rationalfags mad rational grandpa was a lefty

Didn't you hear? Yea Forums is Marxist now

He's the fedora atheist of his day. Philosophers who whine about shitty atheism nowadays but still suck off Russell all deserve death. He is to blame.

based

t. metaphysician

Fuck you Russell

Peak anglo

Sterile anglo garbage.

You are both correct

Literally cuckold philosophy.

He wasn't a lefty. He was a liberal. A proto SJW if you will.

At least, unlike many philosophers, he lived as he preached. He preached cuckoldry and let himself be cuckolded willingly. He was even dedicated enough to his philosophy as to raise the children of his wife's lovers.

Attached: 1545440502053.jpg (850x400, 41K)

So it seems that Russell lived for 20 years after Wittgenstein's death, how did he deal with that?
How did he take Wittgenstein's death?
Wasn't he extremely lonely?

I read a bit of one of his shorter books 'Sceptical Essays', it just went in circles over and over about how great it is to be sceptical. Very shit.

>learning Russell's political and literary opinions

Attached: orestes-and-the-furies-william-adolphe-bouguereau.jpg (900x480, 68K)

He was passive-aggressive about it and complained that Wittgenstein had wasted his talent pursuing nonsense.

that sounds bad, i mean, really bad

I believe he was linking the conception of the General Will and it's infallibility with totalitarian popular-politics, which isn't that unreasonable of a statement, but still a one i think is pretty stupid.

As for Dora Russell, the story is incredibly perverse. Their marriage was, at first, designed by both of them, to allow for liberal bouts of adultery. Bertie became infamous, in the 1920s, for various writings, promoting their concept of the “marriage of the future.” The problem is, when Dora took the matter to heart, and started having children with another man, Bertie went berserk, and began a lifelong campaign of hatred and revenge against her, the which included an about-face, against his former “liberal” views on marriage. Monk’s descriptions, of how he dealt with Dora, from the late 1920s, on through the rest of his life, make for gruesome reading.

Also Rousseau critisized the subversive effects of "natural law" and "morality", which where implemented under Hitlers control. Hitler used gaps inside the social contract to transform the civil law.

imagine being such a high-tier faggot that you encourage your wife to cuck you and then get bad what she does

autism, not even once

He is welsh

this tbqh

every retarded man who opens up his relationship think he thought he was going to get laid as much as his wife does

what is he ignorant about?

Politics, ethics, history, etc.

Anything that wasn't logic or language really.

He's a Ricky Gervais tier philosopher. But if everything needs a cause then what caused God? Boom.

Avoid all of his writings about history of philosophy, or about other philosophers in general. Russell might legitimately be the worst reader in the Western canon, literally everything he wrote about other people is pure unadulterated trash
That said, his works on philosophy of logic and maths are foundational when it comes to analytic philosophy (for example you won't understand Quine and his opposers, basically everything in the field of analytic metaphysics, without having properly understood essays like "On Denoting")

>Atheists like him
Now I don't regret skipping his books.

The truth. Russell was brilliant at a narrow field of philosophy, which is absolutely necessary if you want to understand anything since him. Outside that scope, hes a dismissive asshole. Even half the writers he claims to write against, he misunderstood. See: Meinong. See: basically anyone pre-Frege in his history of philosophy text. See: Wittgenstein once he moved past what Russell was interested in.

I bought his History of Western Philosophy as a primer to introduce myself to the major players before diving in deeper. Was that a mistake?

I think even incorrect information is better than no information so long as your humble and willing to be corrected. Bertrand Russell gets some very basic things wrong about major philosophers so you should be extremely skeptical while reading anything from him. The "brainlet Russell" moniker isn't just a meme.

It's useful in that it covers a wide range of significant figures and some (but definitely not all) of his overviews are decent, BUT you should really look into more substantive scholarship on everyone he talks to develop a more accurate understanding of them.

Oh I think his activism (politics and ethics) were misguided but ultimately fine. His reading of history is sooooo fucking stupid and has set back the analytic history of philosophy for a century. Seriously.

Yes. Flatly fucking yes. You might as well read Diogenes Laertius or fucking Plutarch at face value, if you're going to read that historiographic chamberpot.

This is miles above Russell, if you need a general intro.

Attached: 9780073296180-us.jpg (349x500, 26K)