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...