>By the law of the excluded middle either 'A is B' or 'A is not B' must be true. Hence either 'the present king of France is bald' or 'the present king of France is not bald.' Yet if we enumerated the things that are bald and then the things that are not bald, we should not find the present king of France in either list. Hegelians, who love a synthesis, will probably conclude that he wears a wig.
Holy shit hegel btfo how will hegelfags ever recover
>lmao bro, word games
I used to this this kind of shit was correct when I was a child. My mother would say a man was bald, and I’d say that he had eyebrows so technically he wasn’t bald, Russel operates on the level of a literal autistic child.
>thinking eyebrows make someone not bald.
As is 'bald' doesn't have a strict denotation of the hair on top of someone's head. never gonna make it
>Bertrand Russell, philosopher featured in Asperger’s Syndrome: A Gift or a Curse? by Michael Fitzgerald and Viktoria Lyons and in Asperger Syndrome and High Achievement by Ioan James
every founding father of contemporary stemlord ideology was either an autist or a sperglord
>1. he was autistic
>C. so he was wrong
behold the strength of conties
no one thinks principia mathematica is right. not sure what else the point of the doc was. Doesn't mean Russell isn't important. Plus, this is a quote from 'On Denoting'
i never said he was wrong, but I do think that a lot of the antipathy between sciences and humanities stems from highly accomplished scientists who also happened to be autistic philistines with no capacity to experience art, music, or human emotions in general
He wasn't a scientist and if you did any sort of research beyond looking at Yea Forums memes you'd understand the breadth of philosophy and get an idea why he's important. He has interesting and generally positive things to say about art and beauty. Even if he did write a shitty history of philosophy book.
Also, still sounds like you think you can explain his beliefs by reference to his alleged autism. Which sounds like you think you have a defeater for his beliefs aka you think he's wrong.
Nah, Mathematical Intuitionism readily denies the law of the excluded middle.
Not that this isn't compelling, but the case is certainly not closed.
plato.stanford.edu
This view on mathematics has far reaching implications for the daily practice of mathematics, one of its consequences being that the principle of the excluded middle, (A∨¬A), is no longer valid. Indeed, there are propositions, like the Riemann hypothesis, for which there exists currently neither a proof of the statement nor of its negation. Since knowing the negation of a statement in intuitionism means that one can prove that the statement is not true, this implies that both A and ¬A do not hold intuitionistically, at least not at this moment. The dependence of intuitionism on time is essential: statements can become provable in the course of time and therefore might become intuitionistically valid while not having been so before.
ohhhhh lolololol
but intuitionism is false. Obviously platonism is true about math. I'm interested to hear why you think intuitionism is true.
>Since knowing the negation of a statement in intuitionism means that one can prove that the statement is not true, this implies that both A and ¬A do not hold intuitionistically, at least not at this moment. The dependence of intuitionism on time is essential: statements can become provable in the course of time and therefore might become intuitionistically valid while not having been so before.
Yeah this is obviously wrong. We don't know if it's true or false right now. But it is one or the other. Truth has nothing to do with mental constructions we can currently conceive. Are there an even or odd number of grains of sand in the world right now? Not clear, and totally unprovable, but it doesn't mean that it's both true and false, lol
no need to be triggered, friend. I'm a big fan of a lot of russell's stuff, and I actually got a lot out of his history book when I was younger. But I think his hatred of all things Hegelian has something to do with how fundamentally aesthetic hegel is, both stylistically and metaphysically, and that perhaps russell's alleged aspergers could have played a role in his inability to get Hegel. Of course the whole situation is a lot more complicated, since Russell defined himself as a plain language philosopher or even logicist in the face of the more fashionable hegel-centric british idealism.
anyhow about my broader observation concerning the science/humanities split, I just personally know a lot of scientists with deep aesthetic or even spiritual lives whose deeper concerns are actually frowned upon in their fields which abide by a sort of autistic orthodoxy with no room for anything messier than an equation. I think that autistic intellectuals from Wittgenstein to Dirac have had a large hand in creating this atmosphere.
Well it would be contingent on your definition of bald. No definition of bald could ever be formulated that could be used as a definitive measure in all cases without ambiguity.
yeah he has an unbalanced treatment of a lot of historical philosophers, Aquinas comes to mind, but I don't think Russell is a good example. Consider the following:
>I got into a dreamy mood from reading Pater: I was immensely impressed by it, indeed it seemed to me as beautiful as anything I had ever
read.... [during my adolescence] I made a sort of religion of Beauty,
such as Florian [the protagonist of Pater's story] might have had; I had a
passionate desire to find some link between the true and the beautiful
This seems to be pretty devastating evidence that Russell fits your view. That being said, I do think you're right that a lot of stemlords are dumb when it comes to art and perhaps autism has something to do with that norm.
>muh vagueness problem
you must be new to philosophy if you think that it's some sort of devastating objection to a view; vagueness problems are utterly pervasive in all fields of philosophy. You pretty much just have to become an epistemicist and move on
THERE IS NO KING OF FRAAAANCE
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
But user the person who wrote that is thousands of dollars in debt, are you telling me that what they’re saying is a waste of time and just academic navel-gazing??
Well then if there was a king of France he would either be bald or he wouldn’t. The example in OP is dumb as fuck.
not quite, I think that the foundations and phil. of math are interesting and worthwhile. I just think that when one considers the evidence, the view is obviously false. So many pernicious academics out there :(
Right, but there's not a king of france, so it's false that he is bald. That's the whole point
>Wig
No. They'd conclude that the king shaves. Really weird mental quirk of Russell, was his inability to critically assess things with or without the usage of time.
>*Destroys your whole logic system*
Pshh nothing personnel kid
>Yet if we enumerated the things that are bald and then the things that are not bald, we should not find the present king of France in either list.
What? Why not? Brainlet here
>Hegelians, who love a synthesis
haha thesis antithesis synthesis amrite
did he learn hegel from reddit?
cos france hasn't had a king since the 1800s. there was no present king of france when the sentence was written, so of course he wouldn't show up in any list of bald or not bald things in the world.
I don't even think this is true. A list of all things that are bald (or not bald) would be uncountably large and include most possible concepts. It would also include "robotic unicorns", "bald Bertrand Russel", "necrons", etc. I mean, the law of excluded middle isn't a statement about the actual world, it's purely logical, so suddenly applying worldly scrutiny at the end is kind of cheating
Naive set theory aside, Russell says as much in on denoting, analysing a denoting statement as being existentially qualified - hence "the present king of France" is bald
Intuitionism is what happens when you treat "X is true" as meaning "It can be shown that there is something that is X", instead of the Tarski valuation map definition. "X is false" means "it can be shown that there is something that is not X". "X" means "it can be shown" while "not not X" means "it can't be recited". They're not the same, since showing you can't build a counterexample is different to building an example. Your grain of sand example is misleading, because an intuitionism would claim that it does have an answer. A constructive proof would involve counting all of the grains of sand in the world (which is something we could theoretically do). In classical logic there are propositions which are about fundamentally non-constructive objects, meaning we can talk about them and prove they "exist" in some sense, but it could be either that we haven't yet figured out how to construct/describe one, or it could be that there is no way to construct/describe one. That is why you can't jump from "not not P" to "P" in intuitionistic settings.
This is pathetic. Hegel wouldn't even conclude that.
>Some dude mentions Hegel in what seems like a derogatory statement
>OP jumps on it as if he knows fuck all about what the words are actually saying in-context
No you idiot. The proof is saying "at what point does a man become categorically not bald"? Surely a man with 1 or 2 hairs only is still sporting a pate. So exactly how many hairs makes someone not bald. And is that even a reasonable question? Surely if there was some threshold of non-baldness then 1 or 2 hairs wont be the tipping point.
t. took this all from Godel's Proof.
I get the whole point, the point is really just to mock Hegels idea of the synthesis. But it’s a lame jab, the academic equivalent of a dad joke.
comparable to the "heap of sand" argument.
Baldness implies existence, lack of baldness does not.
You know the descriptivist theory is one of the biggest embarassments in the history of analytic philosophy right? Whereas contemporary a priori epsitemology (which is where the project kickstarted by Frege and Russell virtually ends) totally provides the space for something like Hegelianism, not to mention certain Hegelian renderings of Quinean wholism.
the norwood reaper comes for us all...
depends on the king. there is no "present king of France"
That’s exactly what I said though
This is a lot of ordinary language stuff. It boils down to "language allows you to say a lot of things that don't make sense".
Btw, have you stopped beating your wife?
wittgenstein was often a very serious person but i think you're mischaracterizing him, he was the one who read poetry at the vienna circle meetings to piss them off
He also like to run around people pretending he was a moon or planet in orbit.
I only shower at midnight, yes.
It's literally just one off the cuff remark in a longer, serious paper, that has absolutely nothing to do with Hegel. Just Russell having a little fun jabbing at the idealists and Hegelians that he initially studied under, whom he rejected, and whose philosophy still dominated at that point in time. Don't be autistic anons.
Very Meinongian viewpoint user. Clearly for Russell, any statement involving non-existent objects is false, given that his entire theory of definite descriptions hinges on interpreting (statements involving) them as existential quantification (i.e. "the man is bald" is "there is an x such that x is a man and everything which is a man is identical with x and x is bald") and non existent objects by definition cannot satisify an existential proposition. Further, given that definite descriptions involve existential quantification, it is certainly not nonsense to then appeal to the existent objects in the world. And, a fortiori, we take the content of (logical) propositions as saying something about the state of affairs, thus it makes perfect sense to apply the law of the excluded middle, on Russell's view.
I fucking hate word games, math, and by all extension all "analytic" philosophers
>Hegelian renderings of Quinean wholism
is this peak "I want to be disliked by everyone" philosophy?
>t. took this all from Godel's Proof.
good bait
>i hate truth
never gonna make it
Identifying the word games of others is no mere word game
More and more mathematica a slowly come to realize that it's better to reject excluded middle - it gives more constructive theorems, even if the proofs are harder. Apart from the latter, you don't lose anything either since double-negation-translation allows you to embed the classical logics in the intuitionistic ones: For every classical statement, there's and intuitionistically provable statement that is classically equivalent to the classical one.
The last version of the imv theorem here gives an example:
en.m.wikipedia.org
On that note, if you have some formal background, let me shill my YouTube
youtu.be