What’s up with this board’s hostility against him...

Rusesl's mathematical logic is possibly worse than the rest of his work.
I'm still not over the retardation of the axiom of reducibility. Whitehead shouldn't have been a lazy fuck and bring bernie in the middle of his big project, thereby giving Russel an aura of authority on the subject when he was a glorified contributor.
There is a reason both Poincare and Hilbert hated him, among others. Russel has only ever interested 'analytics', actual mathematicians dislike him. Godel's article on 'Russel's mathematical logic' was just a last dab on the cuck (I'm not posting about russel without mentioning he's a literal cum eating cuckold).

Russel's relevant output is reduced to the 'On denoting' article and nothing else.

Remember the time where Russell admitted to be ontological cucked by Wittgenstein? Those were the days.

THE BIG BOY I LIKE SAYS THIS BOY IS A SMALL BOY WHO I STUPID
I AM A SMART BIG BOY SO I LISTEN TO THE BIG BOY AND THATS HOW I GET SO BIG AND STRONG

justifications:
>semantics

It's easy to be a pacifist and advocate for it when you're an aristocrat. Not much point to violence when you're on top and comfortably staying that way.

Yeah but Russell also cucked T. S. Eliot

what does this has to do with philosophy?

Attached: 022 - YKxlNHL.png (680x497, 237K)

It's easy to be a violent nignog or a white trash varg larper and advocate for it when you're poor. Not much point to acting like an adult and actually improving your life when you're on the bottom and comfortably staying that way.

> Russel's relevant output is reduced to the 'On denoting' article and nothing else.
That’s still a pretty big deal.

It means he has very poor judgment and no scruples. Philosophically this manifests itself in him literally lying about what opponents believe.

Why do you care, and who are you to judge? Are you surprised that not all people live a life that should be lived like you define it to be? Time to grow up. I'm not even joking.

Gonna have to press X on that one
There is literally nothing about it on the Wikipedia article

I care because no man is an island unto himself. There are good and bad actions and every bad action harms mankind as a whole even if it's not directly perceivable.

Russell had many lovers. The person was in another psychic sexual leve.

and how is this relatable to why you care about him raising a child that's not his own?

Monogamy and sexual restraint are healthy for both those who practice it and society.

he is an anglo and thus irrelevant

i plan to read history of western philosophy soon when i get done with my backlog

so you see not being monogamous as a bad action?

Yes

Clearly he does. Nonmonogamous actions are not ordered towards properly raising children or building the trust necessary to sustain a marriage. Even if no children are involved in that particular marriage it creates scandal and sets a bad example for other people.

Does anglos have 0 sexual power?

>or building the trust necessary to sustain a marriage
It's no coincidence that old Bertrand had 4 different wives.

and again, who are you to judge? This is your opinion, and because of that you act disgusted towards someone who doesn't follow your opinion? I would claim that being polygamous is a good action since it had a good influence on our evolution, and thus conclude that sexual restrainment is inhuman. And no, I'm not implying that inhumanity is equivalent to bad actions.

cuck

Who are you to say we shouldn't judge the actions of others? If polygamous marriage was so good the children and people involved in those relationships wouldn't be such wrecks. Broken marriages are the number one correlative with criminal activity.

>and again, who are you to judge? This is your opinion, and because of that you act disgusted towards someone who doesn't follow your opinion?
Someone who studied it and who has seen the awful effects of the Sexual Revolution.

I'm a cuck because I claim that polygamy had a good influence on our evolution? You're a typical 4channer at it's core - I shouldn't have messed with your precious arrogancy.

Yes, it is fair to say that you are a cuck because of that.

Here is the real answer, OP: The antipathy towards Bertrand Russell has nothing to do with the content of his ideas. It has everything to with the affects and prior culture of the users of this board (young men (competitive mindset), largely anglo culture (even if not literal whites).

For them, Russell represents a more familiar figure that they were at least aware of during their teenage years, and in the course of branching out to more "obscure" (read: non-anglo, continental) literature and philosophy, this necessarily entails (in their mind, the young man's conception of competition, roughly speaking) a rejection of the old, what they knew earlier. Russell fits this box, so Russell is (unwarrantedly) one of the ones they gang up on to poop on. A very similar thing occurs in philosophy 101 classes when the new students read Descartes for the first time; most instinctively reject him. These freshman are at least more intellectually honest, though: they do so based upon the content of the ideas, even if they aren't yet fully capable of articulating why they reject Descartes. The Russell-rejection is all fashion.

tl;dr young American men want to put on affects of being cultured and well-read, part of this is reading continental philosophy and concordantly rejecting Bertrand Russell for no other reason than that name-brands like Deleuze and Guattari are "fashionable" in the sense of fashionable nonsense, while Russell is not.

i hate anglos with every fibre of my being

Brilliant, yes, but impossibly arrogant. He changed his position of almost everything he ever wrote at least three times, but Wittgenstein comes back from the trenches with a different view on linguistics and suddenly hes not worth consideration anymore? Fuck off, Russell.

The only thing Russell liked more than adultery was badly interpreting other philosophers. For example, even in "On Denoting," which is a classic for a reason, he gets Meinong absolutely ass backwards, to the degree that its astonishing nobody in his own lifetime called him out more for this. His History of Western Philosophy can be divided into adulation over mathematicians and eternal butthurt directed at Hegel and anyone who even remotely resembles Hegel, which is to say, they formulate their positions in words instead of predicate logic.

When he wasn't attempting to reduce language and human interaction to tax forms, he wrote the most laughably naive and idealistic political theory, dabbled in the anti-war movement, and continued to fuck everything that crossed his path.

I will repeat, he was brilliant and this is undeniable, but hes easy to dislike and it shouldn't be hard to see why.

I'm a Frenchfag who didn't come to Yea Forums until he was past 20 and I still don't like Russell. Your analysis is probably partly right but I doubt what you described is the only factor. There's more generally the fact that Russell can be considered milquetoast (something Yea Forums hates) or the incontestable arrogance of many of his declarations (arrogance which has seldom been expressed with such lack of self-awareness in the history of philosophy). The fact that he was very naively ambitious about the powers of his own philosophy, failed spectacularly, and that the products of that ambition are mostly works that don't have much interest to themselves (even as historical pieces), compounded with how often he's namedropped in common discourse despite not being all that important (and therefore shoving aside more interesting thinkers like Whitehead) only add insult to injury.

Certainly the cuckoldry doesn't help, although I personally don't care about that. But had he been less cocksure, less prone to dismissing other philosophers (while appearing to have comically misunderstood their philosophy), less beholden to an ideal of rationality that ultimately rested on not questioning one's fundamental assumptions, he would probably wouldn't have been as hated. You can't just shit on other philosophers, LARP as a superior mathematical thinker, then realize your math is wrong and your philosophy doesn't really hold up without looking like a fool I'm afraid. I'm willing to admit he seemed like a perfectly fine lad in his private life.

Case in point, his one-time philosophical partner Whitehead is much less hated (in fact he's either ignored or appreciated) and his prized student Wittgenstein his generally liked if not revered despite his own youthful arrogance.

youtube.com/watch?v=cFXWKEc84ew

about his student Wittgenstein

He annoys me because the history he wrote was really bad and it makes a lot of people stupid. People usually read it as an introduction to philosophy and they don't realize how much he's misrepresenting people so they carry on those same mistakes. It wasn't that long ago when Ricky Gervais went on nation TV and asked "well if everything has a cause then what caused God?" and a bunch of people clapped along as if he just dunked on people. He got that from Russell and doesn't realize that nobody ever argued that everything has to have a cause. It's a strawman that Russell built up and knocked down and I know for a fact that he knew better because I listened to an audio clip of Copleston correcting him. He went on with it anyways because he's a dishonest piece of shit.

Shut up faggot.

I judge because I was raised by an abusive whore of a single mother. She pulled the openness and respect card on my father, before cutting him out of my life when I was born and milking him for child support cheques. Then she spent my life growing up riding a carousel of boyfriends, many of whom actively resented and mistreat me.

Fuck you hippies. Mores and restraint provide a safety net for the most vulnerable. In the name of your cummies and your hedonistic blindness, you condemned a generation of men and women like me to be subjected to intolerable conditions. Why? Because you lack the backbone to tell someone that their life is not entirely about them.

And for the most part, you libertines tend to be comfortable middle class yuppy pricks who don't have to deal with the consequences of your behaviour. It's the working classes, who you continually fuck over on the social mobility front.

Attached: descartes.jpg (640x480, 20K)

This user gets it.

Well said.

Attached: E65043A2-D345-41D3-BDB5-24B17197D187.jpg (586x586, 139K)

>who are you to judge?
Eat shit. We can judge all we want. Russel judged others plenty, and even for horseshit reasons.
To say all judgement is wrong is a hypocritical notion. Who are you to judge me for judging, prick? You're the one contradicting your own standards, not me.
Where does this abstract disdain for judgement come from? Is it from the Bible? "Judge not, lest you be judged." Because that's got to be the most twisted and misinterpreted passage in all of literature. I can't think of any other source in the Western canon, so here it is, in full.
>Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.
The filthy hippies and commies really twisted the actual intention. It says to make your standards consistent, to really think about your self before you judge others, and not be a hypocrite.

Yes, that's completely right. A perfect explanation of why pacifism is retarded. Thank you.

No. When the output of a writer is 99.7% trash, the good 0.3% was a coincidence. It wasn't even revolutionary in any way, it was a clear presentation of a specific point that was in the air of the time under convoluted formulations.

Is there anything Russell wasn't wrong about?
>notation
>axiomatic set theory
>theory of knowledge
>empirical epistemology
>ontology
>metaphysics in general
>history
>international affairs
>cuckoldry
Russell is only second to Mill in making the reputation of Anglo as philosophical plebs.

Can you explain what role did each of them play in Principia mathematica?
Many people misunderstood it as only Russell involved with this, or Whitehead only being "proofreader" or some kind of thing. this is False, as even Russell explicitly denied on it.
It is definite fact that they assume the book 4 about geometry would come out, but Russell broke his relationship after Whitehead wanted to found geometry independent to point.
I've heard Book 3 was made wholly by Whitehead, I'm not sure about it but It is possible considering Whitehead was a good mathematician before philosopher.
I think your suggestion that axiom of reducibility was made from Russell is correct, considering only Russell concerned about this axiom over and over in decade. But I'd be glad if you give any citation on this.

>and again, who are you to judge?
This is some peak boomer shit

>roles
They said it themselves. Russell did the chapters on series and Whitehead did almost all of the rest. At least that's what in my edition of the books.
The first part of the book on logic was already largely advanced by Whitehead alone before he brought Russell into it.
The only reason Russell got more brand recognition from the principia is because he wouldn't shut up about it. Whitehead did the bulk of the work including all the interesting parts.

Why is judging people considered bad? Do you even think it's possible not to judge people? You're judging people negatively for them judging other people.

I will never not post this

Attached: Russell BTFO.jpg (601x697, 234K)

Correlation does not equal causation. In this case the implication arrow goes the other way. Its not our fault that your mother was a retard, and clearly passed her genes to you as well. Polygamous societies have historically done better than monogamous ones in the same era.
Kill yourself. If you don't realize that a delinquent lifestyle causes polygamy you don't deserve to use up my oxygen.

>Correlation does not equal causation
I have never seen anyone say this who wasn't a complete retard and that remains true in this case. Nobody said one causes the other so try again.

>literally can remember at least 2 Nobel prize winners, and a Turing award winner saying/writing this. Also pretty much every living statistician whose works I have read.
>but of course you are smarter than them, and won't even CONSIDER that you may be wrong
>Even after I pointed out your massive ego, you will still not consider being wrong
Your post's point was literally "I judge because in my anecdotal experience a polygamous mother failed in her duties" clearly implying in the context that you judge polygamous people to be bad, because you think they are unable to give their children a goo childhood. You so clearly implied that you think that polygamy causes bad-parenting, that I am starting to think the problem is that you don't understand the concept of causation.

Where does it say one causes the other?

Him and the analytical school he epitomizes did my british idealist bros dirty

Attached: 220px-Thomashillgreen.jpg (220x267, 13K)

To say A is linked to B is not to say A causes B. This is why everyone who spouts "correlation does not equal causation" comes off like an idiot. They don't understand the distinction.

It is incredibly clearly implied.
And I mean if implying that wasn't your goal, then your post is pointless, doesn't answer the question, and I have no idea why you wrote it. It would be like "Hey, do you like apples? Yes, I love oranges".
Jesus fucking christ, learn the basics of logic before posting. There's a reason all philosophy courses start with it.

>To say A is linked to B is not to say A causes B
You literally just paraphrased the truism you said saying makes you look like an idiot.

I'm already ahead of you You're not seeing the distinction so maybe take your own advice.

Okay but say it in English this time.

A culture of idiotic hedonism does lead to more people acting like that user's mother did, which does lead to shittier lives.

>You're not seeing the distinction
There's no fucking distinction. Its literally linguistically identical.
Please try to find a source to back up your idiotic claim, and then you shall find no such source exists.

>so maybe take your own advice
btw, my dissertation was literally on formal logic, so if I haven't learnt it by now, its hopeless for me

And what would these polygamous societies be?

>PhD in Logic
>wasting away on Yea Forums

Attached: Pepe.jpg (398x376, 37K)

Nobody asserted a causal relationship, but merely that there was a relationship. Do you think every relationship is causal in nature?

Assuming this is true (which I think it is), believing that polygamy = idiotic hedonism is just false.
Certain periods in ancient greece, some areas of ancient china, early Indian and near-eastern civilizations (especially pre-Persian ones) just from the top of my head. They all did better culturally then most of their neighbors.

>Nobody asserted a causal relationship, but merely that there was a relationship
In which case your post was pointless as it doesn't prove that polygamy is bad even if everything you wrote is correct.

>Assuming this is true (which I think it is), believing that polygamy = idiotic hedonism is just false.

What is being criticized in this thread is "sexual liberation" bullshit. Which is idiotic hedonism.

I'll take it that you don't think every relationship is necessarily causal, meaning it's possible for a relationship to exist between A and B without it being necessarily causal. That's the distinction I'm talking about. The guy said there's a relationship between A and B and you failed to understand this and assumed that he was asserting a causal relationship which is why you felt the need to tell everyone that correlation does not equal causation. My point is that you're an idiot because you're arguing against a strawman.

Try to get your money back from whatever college you went to.

meant for

You'd be surprised.

However if hedonism doesn't cause bad parenting his argument against hedonism is becomes rather ineffectual.

>The official version of the assassination of President Kennedy has been so riddled with contradictions that it is been abandoned and rewritten no less than three times. Blatant fabrications have received very widespread coverage by the mass media, but denials of these same lies have gone unpublished. Photographs, evidence and affidavits have been doctored out of recognition. Some of the most important aspects of the case against Lee Harvey Oswald have been completely blacked out. Meanwhile, the F.B.I., the police and the Secret Service have tried to silence key witnesses or instruct them what evidence to give. Others involved have disappeared or died in extraordinary circumstances.
Yep, I'm thinking he's based.

Attached: 1565687340535.jpg (500x650, 33K)

That's not the point you knobhead. Did you see me talk about anything else related to that post other than that dumb overused phrase?

I'm not him.
Good parenting involves passing good values to your kids.

What about you google how it works? Why do you argue about things you have no idea about?
Is your problem that you think that the distinction between causality and correlation is one between deterministic process and a stochastic one? Its not. It has nothing to do with that.
>The guy said there's a relationship between A and B
I understood this. If B is bad and has a relationship with A, its not enough to conclude that A is bad. There needs to be a causal relation (and one in the correct direction) for that point to hold.
Literally don't trust me. Just read up on it, and you may understand why all those top academics you call idiots keep repeating "correlation does not equal causation". I recommend Judea Perl's "the book of why"

>What about you google how it works?
Top tier Engrish

The truth of the matter is not in debate here. The point is that the argument that user gave achieves nothing, even if his premise is correct. For it to achieve anything it needs to establish a causal relationship which is my point.
Thats literally the point just put into a concrete situation. Different user btw.

Ofc that's the point. You're not the only one in this conversation schlomo.
And that sentence is fine, it's just over memed. If anything we should be even more wary of correlation than the sentence suggest.

The guy didn't say the relationship in itself proves his case. He said that there was a relationship between A and B, not that A is causing B. B being bad and being in a relationship with A indicates that A is bad but doesn't prove the case, which nobody said it did so it's useless to point out that correlation does not equal causation. It's not a response to any claim being made.

>indicates that A is bad
What the hell do you mean "indicates"? Indication of this sort is pointless and doesn't make your argument stronger.
This is precisely the point of "correlation does not equal causation". You can't claim that to be a valid argument, because otherwise people will start pointing out that "The correlation between working less and earning more (between countries) INDICATES that you should work less". Which is just pointless. Indication of this sort has no worth. Do you see how stupid it sounds?

Indication is the starting point for any science. There has to be an relation between A and B and in indication of causation before we can even know what to investigate. Once again, nobody is saying the indication is proof. I've said this multiple times already and I don't know how you're still not getting it. The guy said there was an indication and you assumed he meant there was a proof and you're wrong.

I need you tell me that you understand that I'm saying indication is not an argument. You keep telling me that the relationship isn't necessarily causal as if I haven't been agreeing with you for the past five posts.

>nobody is saying the indication is proof
You seem unable to understand it is not my problem as if I haven't been agreeing with you for the past five posts
The problem is, it doesn't only not prove the point, it is not even actionable evidence in its favor. You may use it as one of the starting points to investigate the matter. You may not use such peripheral evidence in a debate. You may not use this as an excuse to "I judge them, because". The thing is that people (like you) seem to assume correlation means that causation is likely. It doesn't. Correlated things almost always end up not having a causal relationship, as it is MUCH more likely that the correlation comes from a common factor.
I beg you, read a book by a statistician. A blog post on the topic even. I think Andrew Gelman had written something up on this exact error (not cor /= caus, but precisely this assumption that correlation is evidence).

Just to clarify (I was imprecise in that post), it is technically evidence, but it is not actionable evidence, and the poster said "I judge them, because", which indicates that he is making an action due to that evidence.

This isn't a debate and nobody said the relationship was causal. You assumed it did and you were wrong. As far as I'm concerned that's all that needs to be said. All you're doing now is trying to justify your error. I'm not arguing that there is a causal relation between A and B and neither was that guy. If the majority of people who grow up in broken homes end up becoming criminals, there might be a causal relationship. That's all the guy said in essence and you accused him of claiming something he didn't.

i bet you don't even realize how he was curated by his jewish handlers

Did you vote for Hillary?

Haha I didn't know Russell was part of the JIA.

Holy fuck, can you read? I literally answered this post above.
ITS NOT ACTIONABLE EVIDENCE. HE MADE DECISIONS BASED ON THAT EVIDENCE.
Hence if he doesn't imply causation, he is a fucking retard. My assumption may have been wrong, I pretty much conceded that when I started this argument. But if it was wrong, his post is stupid.
Btw, its painfully obvious you are "the guy". "He" stopped responding just as soon as you appeared, and no one refers to "the guy" as "the guy" 4 posts in a row, unless they are trying to convince others they are a different person. /Freud

Not him but yes.

I don't care if you think I'm him or not, it's completely irrelevant as well as his argument or justification for whatever behavior that results from it. You made an error, I point it out, and apparently you see that now so move on. I don't know why you keep going with this or argue with me as if I'm saying correlation equals causation.

I admitted that I may be wrong literally at the very beginning. The point was that if I am wrong, than the guy is an idiot. The ensuing argument had literally nothing to do with it.
>argue with me as if I'm saying correlation equals causation
Um, learn to read?

You see whatever you want to see, no matter what I write, so I guess I will just top responding. But if you re-read what I wrote you may realize that I have been saying the exact same thing since beginning. You should consider suicide desu. Going on Yea Forums, misinterpreting a post so that you can argue against it, and then proceeding to make 10 posts is pointless.

user, we don't think, we know.

The only point I ever made is that you're a sperg for pointing out that correlation does not equal causation because nobody claimed otherwise. I know you keep repeating yourself but there was never any reason to talk to me about his argument to begin with. I don't care about the argument.

Polygyny means everyone is always trying to get more wives, which is bad for cooperation, and prevents the efficient 1:1 sorting by genetic quality that improves the race, instead giving low quality mates to high quality men who then have legitimate middling quality children. It's not historically normal for the White race and we're not suited for it temperamentally.

>Copleston correcting him
Reading his histories now actually and enjoy it. Glad to see another user who knows him.

based