>"He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow wherever the argument may lead. He is not engaged in an inquiry, the result of which it is impossible to know in advance. Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith. If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better; if he cannot, he need only fall back on revelation. The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading. I cannot, therefore, feel that he deserves to be put on a level with the best philosophers either of Greece or of modern times." - Bertrand Russell on Thomas Aquinas
In which books does Russell's critique of Aquinas go?
What colour is the philosophy book
I agree. With that being said, angloid philosophy is even worse.
>he hasn't read quine
>I am a-logical, if not illogical, and glad to be so when I find Bertie Russell trying to excogitate what 'true knowledge' means, in the absence of any concrete universe surrounding the knower and the known. Ass!
It's hilarious in a post-nietzschean and post-marxian age to unironically believe that philosophers are "following arguments wherever they may lead" rather than justifying themselves and their desires. Or as the better anglo philosopher said, reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions.
>unironically believe that philosophers are "following arguments wherever they may lead"
Bertie was tho
Nietzsche is absolutely terrible as a historical analyst of philosophy, mostly dealing in pale strawmen and generally horribly misrepresenting whoever who chooses to heap scorn on. The genetic fallacy is a fallacy, not a "solve it all," for philosophy. In particular, Nietzche cannot help us with all the different, mutually exclusive arguments from psychoanalysis surrounding religion. Is Freud right, or Marx, or Feuerbach? They can't all be right. Simply sketching some way in which a person might be motivated towards their conclusions is actually shit analysis of you can't demonstrate it in any sort of rigorous fashion.
You have thinkers like St. Augustine who radically change over time. It's hard to explain this without reference to where their arguments had led them.
Plus, Nietzsche, being highly emotional, is open to this same sort of reduction, i.e., "he only thinks everyone else stands on nothing because he does."
rare anglobrain W
This is usually considered a bad critic, even by Atheists. Russell was a particularly bad writer on philosophers he disagreed with.
As someone who likes Stoicism, I remember his comments were worse than useless.
>Russell was a particularly bad writer on philosophers he disagreed with
Russell was certainly opinionated, but I've never found his criticisms of other philosophers to be unfair - completely the opposite, and I disagree with him about a lot. I don't think Aquinas would disagree with what Russell is saying here, and would probably go further - he didn't "fall back" on faith when reasoning failed, he held it to be superior, and he would abandon theology for pure worship, leaving the summa unfinished. If you don't accept this viewpoint, you aren't going to find arguments that rely on it convincing; and you might consider whether other arguments, which appear to be based on "pure reason", are just motivated reading in disguise.
Again, Russell is fundamentally wrong here, humans only have access to impure human reason, and every single axiom since Euclid is definitionally unsupportable and 100% motivated by feels (and Russell has argued this himself). Russell's rejection of faith stands on the same logical ground as Aquinas' insistence on it - none whatsoever. But his point is correct - their projects have different goals and different bases, and are largely irreconcilable.
Well said.
>Russell's rejection of faith stands on the same logical ground as Aquinas' insistence on it - none whatsoever.
Imagine saying that insanity and sanity exist on the same level because you can't prove either one is superior without reference to presuppositions, and you might as well presuppose it's best to be insane. I suppose philosophy has at least that one thing going for it, it allows madmen to expose themselves as insane.
Imagine in pretending that "stands on the same logical ground" means "is equally good" while acting like the person you're replying to is the idiot. Imagine starting posts with "imagine" in 2024.
IDK, Russell is pretty bad on people who doesn't like. His critique of Nietzsche is pretty much just calling him a physically weak incel who had a boner for Ghengis Khan and hated women because he was a little b***h boy lol.
>His critique of Nietzsche is pretty much just calling him a physically weak incel who had a boner for Ghengis Khan and hated women because he was a little b***h boy lol.
Given the way Nietzsche criticized others, I'm not sure if it's undeserved. I feel the same way when people give uncharitable criticism of Russell.
But Russell got lots of pussy, anon.
Rejection of an idea with no proof backing it, doesnt need proof.
>Rejection of an idea with no proof backing it, doesnt need proof.
this idea have any proof backing it?
Why, do you reject it?
*critique, mon frere
>perhaps the keenest and most lucid mind known to human history - James Joyce on Thomas Aquinas
It's rather telling that philosophy became so much more productive through the simple act of ignoring Aquinas and the other Medieval hacks (Averroes, Avicenna, Maimonides, etc.).
How exactly did philosophy become more productive?
If anything, the project that the Ancients and Aquinas had was far more productive than modern philosophy.
The meandering and hair-splitting "discourse" started by Avicenna is the least productive period in the history of philosophy, one of pure stagnation. By rejecting it, our use of thought gain knowledge became so much more sophisticated. Doing that created within reason the capacity to do something else than abuse logic to "demonstrate" the convictions that were already held, and with that the possibilities of reason allowed for a more constructive discourse.
We can even see this in the readership of these thinkers. People read Descartes, Hume, and Kant to to develop their minds and help them in a search to find truth no matter how elusive it may be. People read Avicenna, Averroes, and Aquinas to learn talking points they can repeat in shallow internet debates.
> People read Descartes, Hume, and Kant to to develop their minds and help them in a search to find truth no matter how elusive it may be. People read Avicenna, Averroes, and Aquinas to learn talking points they can repeat in shallow internet debates.
I don’t see why reading Avicenna, Averroes, and Aquinas can’t develop your mind, too. If you’re even seriously doing EITHER of these (falling into either of these groups), you’re already probably a standard deviation or a few above the baseline. People don’t read and think seriously, on average. Even if one of these groups is in a more traditional religious context, taking certain revelations or inspired sets of scriptures as “givens”, they’re also still incredibly intelligent thinkers. But you are right, to the modern worldview, we may find parts of Descartes, Hume, and Kant more relevant.
>f you’re even seriously doing EITHER of these (falling into either of these groups), you’re already probably a standard deviation or a few above the baseline.
I don't know if there's a single living person today who engages with these Medievals seriously. Like I said, they're mostly people looking to score points debates. I don't want to say its impossible since Brentano was able to pluck out one of their concepts and put it to good use, but I suspect people capable of doing such a thing have gone the way of the dodo.
This all sounds like the most pop-science understanding of the history of philosophic, mathematical, and scientific thought. Descartes leaned on Francois Vieta and Apollonius for his symbolic algebra, the scholastic Orseme had already proved the mean speed theorem within the two centuries or so before Galileo, Averroes was simply part of a lineage using Aristotelian logic for hundreds of years, and his Canon of Medicine became *the* reference book for everyone coming out of the "Dark Ages" of Rome's collapse, work on optics, medicine, astronomy, and early chemistry was practically constant for hundreds of years before the Renaissance. The biggest cause of slowdown in development in Europe was the total collapse of Western Europe in light of the fall of Rome and subsequent deep invasions by the Muslims, it's hardly a surprise that science had fits and starts when people were more concerned over treatment by foreign conquerers and whether there'd be a harvest or another war. But your thesis is too much of an armchair understanding, as if things froze at Averroes (what, were Al-Farabi or Porphyry chopped liver?).
First, I said that the stagnation was the fault of Avicenna, and that Averroes, Aquinas, etc. just worked to maintain it. What I've accused Avicenna of is formalizing a language game in which an adapted version of Aristotelian logic which allowed for infinite hair splitting to justify one's preexisting beliefs.
>what, were Al-Farabi or Porphyry chopped liver?
Two precursors to stagnation. The first in the order you've presented them, was only interesting when dealing with Plato. They can be helpful for understanding Aristotle if you don't want to go beyond Aristotle.
I also never denied that anyone in the middle ages was a capable mathematician and or scientist, but that is because those two fields cannot fit into the discourse that was formalized by Avicenna. There are some places where they overlap, but they can not fit into it. Those doing mathematical and scientific work in the era were doing something outside of Avicenna's philosophical project, even if they, and this includes Avicenna himself, believed otherwise. That can't be held against them. Everyone who thinks is wrong about their own thoughts here and there.
It's actually the other way around. When you read enough philosophy, you realize how impoverished modern philosophy is, with a few brief exceptions. So you return to the original GOAT (Aristotle) and everybody who tried to make sense of him. Then you wonder what did anybody ever see in a Descartes.
>The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading
So Russell didn't know what special pleading actually was?
This rich of him considering his pop ethical/political books, where his conclusions are selected in advance and then argued for.
>any philosophy
>being worth anybody's time
now that's rich
>He is not engaged in an inquiry, the result of which it is impossible to know in advance. Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in his ideas about empiricism
Working within a framework like empiricism or Catholic theology is fine but pretending that framework is unassailable is always dishonest, Bert is worse than Aquinas because he keeps making declarations that reveal how unconscious he is of his own biases while Aquinas acknowledges some of his.
You clearly have not read Russell at all. He is very rigorous in critically examining every supposition and presupposition he operates from. Nothing is safe from examination and every bias and limitation is duly acknowledged and accounted for. Try "The Problems with Philosophy" and then comment on him.
Yeah, it's kind of hard to hold that against him when there are very few thinkers whose positions evolved throughout their lifetimes as much as some of his did.
The mark of a great man is to improve his views and perspectives, not to hold to the same ones forever.
This is trivially untrue, Russell presupposes all the time, and directs his rigor according to whim and fancy, so he can insist that epistemological questions come prior to metaphysical ones, when the epistemological questions already presuppose metaphysical questions having been dealt with. Have you ever read his shit books about politics?
Give examples, there is no actual substance in your post. What does he presuppose which you object to? What do you mean when you say "metaphysical questions"? He builds from the starting point of consciousness in and of itself and makes reasonable inferences from that regarding the external universe. Having established this, he makes comments on what is socially reasonable to believe and what is likely to lead to positive outcomes or negative outcomes. Where do you object to any of this?
Then he wouldn't make all these statements that rest on being unconscious of them. He tried to account for his biases and failed miserably. It doesn't matter how long or structured your justifications are when you then behave as if your models are holy dogma with some special property other models don't have.
It's accurate to say something like physics is more accurate than any previous model and theologians can't compete when it comes to predicting physical behaviours. Pretending we arrived at that model through some magical objective insight instead of a series of assumptions not justified by pure reason is moronic. It's just a nice model humans made up, pretending it's special is exactly the same kind of dogmatic declaration as the religious used to make and Bert types keep criticizing without any awareness that they're doing it themselves.
You should read "The Problems with Philosophy". He literally addresses exactly what you are referring to and never invokes a "holy dogma" or "magical objective insight". He makes inferences from the starting point of pure consciousness to the likelihood of an exterior reality, and from there what is reasonable to believe about this reality. He lays this all out to be assessed by the reader in the spirit of honest inquiry.
>He makes inferences from the starting point of pure consciousness to the likelihood of an exterior reality, and from there what is reasonable to believe about this reality.
And then he attacks those who made similar arguments before him for not using the exact same language and framing of the starting points, the presuppositions taken on faith like "I". He doesn't show any understanding of how ideas develop and how his framing is a more refined version of the the ones he's attacking as if they're doing something completely different. He's a student of Aquinas and pals using them as the foundation for his ideas and then in his mind removing the foundation from under him to make him an "independent thinker" floating in le pure reason.
What EXACTLY do you view as so foundational from Aquinas? As I just laid out, he takes a starting point of zero foundation and builds from basic consciousness (at best you could say he is replicating Descartes, but he has very distinct differences from him so even then it makes no sense) Your post sounds like a fan boy who doesn't like his favorite philosopher to be under appreciated.
>What EXACTLY do you view as so foundational from Aquinas?
The point is he's participating in the same process as Bert. Their models of the world are similar, close together in history and in what is taken for granted. One of them seething about the other being fundamentally different for working within a set of assumptions reveals he's unconscious of his assumptions, their origins and the origins of his methods.
The separate self as fundamental comes from the idea of the soul. The idea that external reality is comprehensible rests on ideas about universality and basically a third heavenly realm we can explore with our minds to predict what physical instances of those heavenly forms do. Each part of "I think therefore I am" contains a million hidden assumptions, it rests on the entire history of humanity and according to Descartes one of the elements that we have to face if we conceive of the world in those terms is God.
>The point is he's participating in the same process as Bert. Their models of the world are similar, close together in history and in what is taken for granted. One of them seething about the other being fundamentally different for working within a set of assumptions reveals he's unconscious of his assumptions, their origins and the origins of his methods.
Russell works without the assumption of God. Aquinas does work with that assumption (his proofs are laughable, and just a cover to cope with the fact that it's an assumption). Russell is the more rigorous and builds from a more robust foundation which reduces presuppositions to the least amount possible.
>The separate self as fundamental comes from the idea of the soul.
What on earth makes you think that? The separate self as fundamental comes from the fact that you think your own thoughts and can only be actually sure of your own existence.
>The idea that external reality is comprehensible rests on ideas about universality and basically a third heavenly realm we can explore with our minds to predict what physical instances of those heavenly forms do
Since your thoughts exist, and they are oriented towards sense data which enters your consciousness, it is reasonable to infer that there is an external world from which the data originates, and this does not rely on anything other than the basic facts of your own consciousness. You seem to operate on the assumption that you need to KNOW for CERTAIN all the characteristics of the external reality (that it is a third heavenly realm we can explore) rather than simple restricting yourself to the minimal assumptions possible, that, since sense data seems to originate from an external world, we can infer that some kind of external world exists which correlates with our sense data. The whole point is that you can start from scratch, with zero "history of humanity" and build entirely from the facts that meet your consciousness. Remember, every word of history has come to you through your sense data, thus, to even account for it to begin with, you have to grapple with the realities of your own consciousness and the tenuousness of the bridge between merely assuming the external world exists as it appears through the sense data. The point of being rigorous is to discard all previous baggage and build from the most basic first principles possible. If any worldview has merit, you should be able to build to it without reference to anything other than essential reason and the facts that exist within your own consciousness.
>my preconceptions are holy dogma and I can't even imagine alternatives
Yep.
>this does not rely on anything
All the concepts you're using rely on a built up context, they're not divine revelations just because you decide to treat them as fundamentals. The conceptual separation of the qualia from an external thing it's experiencing is just how you want to frame what's happening, it's one useful model which like any other rests on leaps of faith. Your assumptions / holy dogma don't give your claims that rest on them special privilege, they're exactly the same kind of claims as Aquinas makes which rest on his assumptions / holy dogma.
There is no leap of faith required for "I think therefore I am". You have no basis to doubt the process on which doubt is required to exist. To doubt it is to think, and to think proves the doubt false. You are just mad that this blows the frick out of religious thinkers like Aquinas.
>To doubt it is to think
To formally doubt you first adopt a framework in which things can be true or false, there are no dichotomies like that presented by experience itself. Life apparently established fundamental axiomatic elements we take for granted like strict categories and boolean thinking that simplifies complexity into binary, the existence of the colour red as a distinct category etc all to facilitate reproduction of information. We adopt inherited frameworks and take them for granted until we grow up and think for ourselves which Bert never did. He died an unconscious religious zealot like you.
Laughable anon, great projection. Nothing of what you said applies in the slightest.
But I can't know if life really did that, it's just a model like any other. The point is to be able to conceive of alternatives to mitigate your preconceptions and biases and thought experiments aka stories are a more useful tool to accomplish that then any of the arrogant horseshit from blind morons like Bert.
The process of life defining the world we perceive is basically equivalent to the thought experiment where a demon made up the world as an illusion. The shadows in the cave are made up by other people and a 4 billion year old daemon.
You can't even say anything except restate your dogma and demand I accept it. You're a walking parody of a religious zealot.
I laid out exactly how to build from first principles and why it does not require dogmatic beliefs or magical thinking. You failed to address this is any meaningful way and have only demonstrated you have not actually read Russell
So you really are incapable of conceiving of your dogma being wrong and think that's a good thing? The height of fricking reason?
What dogma? That we should build on reasonable inferences? Are you suggesting I consider abandoning reason?
>build from first principles
>does not require dogmatic beliefs or magical thinking
lol
I'd ask you to make the case for a first principle that is not based in reason but that would be an appeal to reason so I guess just psychically beam the vibe of your competing first principle at me or whatever and maybe I'll pick it up. You know, to avoid the dogma of needing things to be reasonable.
A "reasonable" "first principle" requires some sort of observation beforehand, which itself is constrained by our faculties to observe and draw probabilistic conclusions about whatever it is we experienced.
"I think therefore I am". This literally requires no assumption of any kind. Thinking requires a process of thought. Whatever "I" am, it is a thing which processes thoughts. I know this because I am the one experiencing the thoughts, thus I must exist since I have direct and irrefutable reference to the existence of my thoughts. You don't need to presuppose that you are an observer in order to observe. The fact that you are observing at all proves itself.
Why do you need an observer? There is a whole world religion that disagrees.
Are you not an observer?
Maybe there really just are thoughts and the view that there is an observer is also just a thought and it might be an illusion.
I know this is an ultra sceptical view but the point of Descartes' investigation was to be as sceptical as possible.
I actually don't know who the first western Philosopher to say that was, but Nietzsche also criticised the argument.
You've accurately pinpointed what Descartes was exploring, and the point is that even if you strip absolutely everything away, even the totality of external reality, there are still thoughts which manifest. Therefore, it is possible that nothing at all exists other than the thoughts you have direct reference to. Therefore, the one and only thing that can be undisputed and irrefutable is that you exist. If you didn't exist, you wouldn't be able to ask the question, so the fact that the question exists confirms without any doubt or possibility of doubt, that you exist. Even if all your thoughts are illusions, the illusion itself exists, and the you which is under the illusion exists. If there really was nothing, you wouldn't even have the illusion, you simply wouldn't exist.
I actually think that there is an observer and I also think that there is an external world but both require an intellectual leap. Even if the proposition is true, it's not as certain as Descartes makes it out to be.
Buddhists aren't the only ones criticising the argument, there were western philosophers doing the same.
You say that thoughts are being processed, how do you know that? That already sounds like question begging or at least like a grammatical convention.
You can't even ask the question "how do you know that?" without accepting there is a "you" to know anything. It's impossible to use language at all without acknowledging there is a mind which is either originating the language or receiving it. At bedrock, there is no escaping this, there is a phenomenon which is manifest and can be labelled as anything under the rubric of "observer", "thinker", "mind", "consciousness", etc. It's literally not up for debate, because if you attempt to debate it, even to yourself, you already admit there is a "you" to conduct the debate. The platform by which to advance any worldview has to begin with the acknowledgement that there is a view to be advanced. I can only repeat myself, you have direct and constant reference to this at any moment in which you exist, even now you should stop reading this and simply examine what it is to be. To feel, to think, to wonder, to marshal an argument. As the Buddhists all too readily found out, if you attempt to remove this "self" it will always prove ineffectual, since even if there is a type of experience that can be called "selflessness", it requires a self to be experienced!
Yes, under that view our language is incorrect and there might be no possible way to change our language such that it reflects ultimate reality. Buddhists often say that as soon as you open your mouth you are already lying.
The fact that our grammar presupposes an observer, an actor etc. could be evidence that this is actually the case but we should also ask ourselves if language hasn't shaped our view in an incorrect way.
Thoughts exist but just as a thought might not reference anything in the external world (like the thought of a unicorn, or if solipsism is true even the thought of dogs etc.) the thought of "I" might reference nothing in the real world. Also depends on your definition of "I", I guess, if you just define yourself as a collection of thoughts and experiences then I guess this criticism doesn't apply.
>Buddhists aren't the only ones criticising the argument, there were western philosophers doing the same.
Buddhists don't criticize it because it has nothing to do with Buddhism, Descartes quote is about reflection of an individual (Tanagatha rather than self) which has nothing to do with the topic of Skandhas (emergence of thoughts being seen as impermanent) or any implications on unchanging selves
wtf are you guys talking about
Ok, there is an "I", but what is this "I"? Are there more things in the universe than just that "I"? Maybe not, i dont know.
That's not the actual quote genius, it's
I doubt therefore I think
I think therefore I am
the first one implying that it's his doubts over whether or not things are real serving as a basis for a sort of ontological spacing/spaciousness. It is not simply a question of existence, rather the nature of one's own input onto the reflection of existence versus being a mere observer in an illusory haze
Why did none of the replies correct him
How do you know it's you thinking? Maybe there are just thoughts.
He's not wrong in at least some respects, in that what Aquinas is doing is often quite different from what would generally be called "philosophy," today. Rather, it sits somewhere in between what is now called philosophy and what is now called theology, a sort of theological philosophy or philosophical theology.
However, I would disagree that this in any way detracts from his merits as a thinker, which are not unfounded.
Moreover, given Russell's general opinions on mysticism and God, one could easily see him stretching this same complaint to cover most ancient and medieval thinkers. But was his era really so different?
"Thou shalt not invoke God," became a sort of command from on high. Atheism and even materialism became the same sort of starting assumptions that Aquinas had held. The positivist "view from nowhere," was shown to be incoherent. What is funny is that Aquinas had already located the attacks that modern critics would use to dismantle positivism in his writings on truth. One cannot reduce truth to the mindless world of "things in themselves."
No only are properties "in themselves" epistemology inaccessible, but they are also pointless. Things only matter to us to the extent they interact with the rest of the world. An interaction involving phenomenal awareness isn't somehow "less real," than a mindless one.
Thomas had the sense to see that trying to reduce the subjective to the objective was a fools errand. Truth only makes sense if there is the possibility of falsity. There is no reason to have an appearance/reality distinction in a world with no appearances.
What positivists and their successors really wanted was a "God's eye view," but they were forced into an incoherent "view from nowhere," due to their own presuppositions about what the world must be like. The result is that Continentals tore apart their project and made nihilism and sophistry the reining powers in philosophy.