Sunday, February 26, 2023
Bertrand Russell "Considered purely as a philosopher, Marx has grave shortcomings. He is too practical, too much wrapped up in the problems of his time. His purview is confined to this planet, and, within this planet, to Man.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151756166952874&set=a.10150204981937874.310621.86711477873&type=1&theater
Bertrand Russell
"Considered purely as a philosopher, Marx has grave shortcomings. He
is too practical, too much wrapped up in the problems of his time. His
purview is confined to this planet, and, within this planet, to Man.
It has been evident that Man has not the cosmic importance which he
formerly arrogated to himself. No man who has failed to assimilate
this fact has a right to call his philosophy scientific. Marx
professed himself an atheist, but retained a cosmic optimism which
only theism could justify."
-Bertrand Russell "A History of Western Philosophy" (1945) Book Three,
Part II, Chapter XXVII Karl Marx p.788
"Considered purely as a philosopher, Marx has grave shortcomings. He
is too practical, too much wrapped up in the problems of his time. His
purview is confined to this planet, and, within this planet, to Man.
It has been evident that Man has not the cosmic importance which he
formerly arrogated to himself. No man who has failed to assimilate
this fact has a right to call his philosophy scientific. Marx
professed himself an atheist, but retained a cosmic optimism which
only theism could justify."
-Bertrand Russell "A History of Western Philosophy" (1945) Book Three,
Part II, Chapter XXVII Karl Marx p.788
Like · · Share · 2712462 · 3 hours ago ·
Top Comments
271 people like this.
62 shares
Charles Brown Russell's comment pretty much constitutes a critique of
himself. He doesn't seem to realize he praises and affirms Marx as
pre-eminent wise man of our epoch.
Like · Reply · about a minute ago
Jim Farmelant Most of those points speak in Marx's favor IMO. In other
words, he was concerned mostly with "the problems of men," to use John
Dewey's terminology.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · 3 minutes ago
Houman Fiftyseven Sir, the cherry picking you do of Russell's quotes
gives a very reactionary bias. I do not mean that one should not
critisize Marx and/or socialism (or whatever you want to call it), but
your focus is mainly on that side. Thus you mainly seem to focus on
Russell's criticism on 'revolutionaries' (I use this term in lack of
being able to come up with something better), so it seems to me at
least. The Russell you portray seems very much in harmony with the
current state of affairs, and doesn't show any form opposition against
the hegemonic powers as is very necessary, even more so as, say,
criticism against the (revolutionary) left, which is what you mostly
focus on. The Russell you portray could be very much a proponent of
Margaret Thatcher for example, confirming her famous phrase of 'loony
lefties'. To Balance out your Bias, I give the following quote by
Bertrand Russel himself:
"I have placed these general reflections at the beginning of
our study, in order to make it clear to the reader that, whatever
bitterness and hate may be found in the [Anarchist and Socialist]
movements which we are to examine, it is not bitterness or hate, but
love, that is their mainspring. It is difficult not to hate those who
torture
the objects of our love. Though difficult, it is not impossible;
but it requires a breadth of outlook and a comprehensiveness
of understanding which are not easy to preserve amid a desperate
contest. If ultimate wisdom has not always been preserved
by Socialists and Anarchists, they have not differed in
this from their opponents; and in the source of their inspiration
they have shown themselves superior to those who acquiesce
ignorantly or supinely in the injustices and oppressions
by which the existing system is preserved."
Like · Reply · 23 · 3 hours ago
Umair Nasir Doesn't one get the feeling that he is criticizing and
praising Marx at the same time?
Like · Reply · 7 · 3 hours ago
Franz Fritz You could just say the same thing about Plato, etc..
Like · Reply · 6 · 3 hours ago
2 Replies · 2 hours ago
Dimas Fernández Otero Marx proposed a kind of materialist analysis
that can be still used today applying the critiques that the
difference between our time and Marx's forces us to accept. I don't
believe that the goal of a political or social philosopher is to speak
the truth, but to make powerful and original interpretations, to go
beyond what is purely empirical. I suggest the moderator of this page
to focus on Russel's own interpretations and not on his righteous and
self-centered assertions on other philosophers (specially when
Russel's own philosophy of language and science, logical atomism, was
proved to be insufficient to deal with most philosophical problems by
Wittgenstein and many others that followed his critiques on Russel's
views)
Like · Reply · 3 · 3 hours ago
Bell Noor ironic, how he gained fame when there were more critical
thinkers at the given time, place?! Ohh and what I so dislike is that,
when people notice any 'left' sign in one, they class one as Marxist.
Like · Reply · 1 · about an hour ago · Edited
Dani Kaye Bertrand Russell: a fine critical thinker
Like · Reply · 2 · 2 hours ago
Nawaz Phulpoto A
Scientific Mind like that of Marx should always be criticized on
Scientific Basis, not like such unscientific assumptiöns as Russell has
done. Though his book on the history of philosophy is a great
contribution but, i must say he isnt a philosopher, u may call him a
thinking mind or a learned man but not a man of Pure Philosophy of
Reason, Dialetics and Rationalism.Every Liberal/Secular mind or Atheist
is not a philosopher, and every philosopher is not a Marxist
Philosopher.Marxism is an outcome of the conscience and consciousness of
mankind that Marx could only trace out scientifically. Russell is an
anti-Marx mind, he
has shown his hatred in the essay 'Reflections on the Re-awakening
East', which totaly is an illogical critique. His level of probbing into
human psychology and commön sense is appriciable but his anti-Marx
stance is ruthless, biased and IMPERIALISTIC.
Like · Reply · 1 · 2 hours ago · Edited
Carlos Antonio Galeano Ríos Marce Mnz, Fabi Roman Maldonado, Majela
Penton Machado, Andres Mojoli Le Quesne, Bruce Lee, Hugo Checo Silva
See Translation
Like · Reply · 1 · about an hour ago
Jason Vancil Funny, our obsession with dead men.
Like · Reply · 1 · 2 hours ago via mobile
Wayne Bamford Prob like when people go to the opera and pretend they
have the slightest idea what the last three hours were all about.
Like · Reply · 1 · 3 hours ago
Anthony Downes how can one not adore life where there is such
magnificent thought?
Like · Reply · 1 · 3 hours ago via mobile
Wayne Bamford I love Bertrand Russel, I just wish I knew what the hell
he was going on about most of the time. I have to get my dictionary
out every time I read anything by or about him then pretend I know
what the hell he's going on about, lol.
Like · Reply · 1 · 3 hours ago
Pierluigi Orati Russel wished to be just one hair of Karl Marx...
Like · Reply · 3 · 3 hours ago
Mauro Costa Assis Luiz
See Translation
Like · Reply · 1 · about an hour ago
Azdeen Shabazz Funny.
Like · Reply · 2 hours ago via mobile
Kalyb Prince Marx sucked at chess. Also, it's impossible to separate
Marx the philosopher from Marx the economist, as he made it his life's
task to apply his powers of reason to the problem's of his day; purely
and simply. Sure he may not of endeavored to widen our collective
understanding of philosophy, but that is never something to be held
against someone (in my opinion it takes quite a lot of courage)...
ESPECIALLY someone who made as many contributions to mankind as Marx.
He was the master of his own destiny, as was Russell. Whether Russell
agrees with his decision is therefore irrelevant.
Like · Reply · 3 hours ago
Vivienne Mawditt You could say the same about Plato? Wtf? On what planet?
Like · Reply · 3 hours ago via mobile
Mohamed Sabry Hegazy Hany
Like · Reply · 3 hours ago
Christ Jan Wijtmans Those problems still exist today.
Like · Reply · 1 · 3 hours ago
Mahboob Popatia Even otherwise Marx failed to comprehend the potential
of growth that capitalism had and that made the expected revolution
evitable.
Like · Reply · 25 minutes ago
Patrick Pulley cosmic optimism *chi ching*
Like · Reply · 2 hours ago
Write a comment...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment