= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Laoch comments on Rationality Quotes August 2012 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (426)
I often find that I'm not well read enough or perhaps not smart enough to decipher the intricate language of these eminent philosophers. I'd like to know is Russell talking about something akin to scientific empiricism? Can someone enlighten me? From my shallow understanding though, it seems like what he is saying is almost common sense when it comes to building knowledge or beliefs about a problem domain.
The idea that one should not philosophize keeping close contact with empirical facts, instead of basing a long chain of arguments on abstract "logical" principles like Leibniz's, may be almost common sense now, but it wasn't in the early modern period of which Russell was talking about. And when Russell wrote this (1940s) he was old enough to remember that these kind of arguments were still prevalent in his youth (1880s-1890s) among absolute idealists like Bradley, as he describes in "Our Knowledge of the External World" (follow the link and do a Ctrl-F search for Bradley). So it did not seem to him a way of thinking that was so ancient and outdated as to be not worth arguing against.
ETA: I meant, "The idea that one should philosophize keeping...", without not, obviously.
Ah very good, in that context it makes perfect sense.