Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Science, Math, and Philosophy
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 09-25-2005, 08:15 AM
purnell purnell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 154
Default Re: More Russell Quotes on Religion

[ QUOTE ]

Maybe the problem is you see 'unyielding despair' as his conclusion when he says it is a firm foundation which kind of suggest it isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think it's the foundation he laid from a conclusion he came to because of his acceptance of chance as ultimate. I think he probably read Nietzsche. I like the quote because it rubs your nose in the only possible reasonable position to hold if God doesn't exist - though of course calling anything reasonable in a universe of chance is problematic at best.

[/ QUOTE ]
Reason is a human thing. One should not expect the universe to be reasonable.



[ QUOTE ]
Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's a metaphorical sentence. I think it means about the same as "We cannot hope to reach a true understanding of ourselves and our place in the universe if we start out by denying the truth of our mortality".
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-25-2005, 11:52 AM
chezlaw chezlaw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London, England
Posts: 58
Default Re: More Russell Quotes on Religion

[ QUOTE ]
I think Wittgenstein (I am not an expert in this area by any means) meant that if it could not be put into words (like feelings, God, etc..) then it wasn't worth discussing or even thinking about. He was basically saying that most philosophy was worthless. Wasn't this the Logical Positivists stance?

[/ QUOTE ]

Logical positivists (LPs) liked to claim Wittgenstein (W) as one of their own but I don't think he agreed.

I think W was saying that if something cannot be put into language then nothing can be said about it (I find W hard to understand so that could be wrong).

LPs argued the claim that 'something is only meaningful if it can be verified'. They had a lot of fun destroying whole swaythes of metaphysics until someone pointed out that their claim could not be verfied.

chez
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.