Today my group had the pleasure of discussing Russell. Despite his enlightening philosophical views, everyone in our group agreed that he was a bit strange. His views differ from the philosophers we have been accustomed to talking about. Even though his ideas were strange, they caused us to really think. He brought to mind the question, can something in our world exist, but not exist at the same time. One example that is easily explainable would be unicorns. Every human being knows what a unicorn is. Some people may even believe that unicorns truly exist. Whether or not you think they exist, Russell would have argued that they DO exist, while NOT existing at the same time. They exist in our minds because we can each imagine a picture of a unicorn in our minds. They are not found on planet earth, therefore they don't exist. It can truly be a simple thought process if you allow your mind to wander from its normal activities. After discussing this, we briefly talked about Russell's thoughts on religion. He thought that religion, in a way, makes people bad. We all had conflicting thoughts on this. Often times, a religious person, no matter what religion, is constantly striving to become a better person. We did not understand how striving to become a better person could, in turn, cause you to be a bad person. Granted, there are always going to be those few people in every group that stand outside the boundaries. No matter what Russel thought, his ideas caused thoughts to be provoked in people. This is what makes a philosopher useful. It creates abstract ideas.
Russell's emphasis on linguistics is very striking to me. He makes language into a sort of math like entity, where everything is very structured and any mistake is quickly fixed or at least can be accounted for and recognized as a logical fallacy. How we utilize language was an important part of language itself to him, and reducing it into its components, defining each term, and logically setting up sentences so that fallacies would not be possible is how his view appears to me, and I like the idea, but it just seems too rigorous for a flowing, ever-changing, fluid thing like language. Set boundaries would have a detrimental affect on linguistics, and would only impede progress in the English language and other sectors of life.
ReplyDelete"Thus mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true. People who have been puzzled by the beginnings of mathematics will, I hope, find comfort in this definition, and will probably agree that it is accurate."
It seems as if he was bothered that language was also built upon a similar premise, so he set out to change both
FQ: Who studied philosophy as a logical analysis of language and the utilization of precision in the use of linguistics? Bertrand Russell
DQ: Even if a system of linguistics was established, would it be adhered to?
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell
I think people like when there's certain rules to adhere to. That's why I like math. For the most part, there's a set of rules with very few exceptions. I struggle with english because there are so many exceptions and different ways to do things. Specific rules that allow everyone to understand what's going on can be useful. I think Russell was trying to come up with a way that people would be able to understand without the risk of misinterpreting the other person. And like Mason said, I agree that this is a good idea in theory.. but in practice I don't see a way it could actually work. It would cause us to have a lack of expression, and I really just don't see how we could make language into a strict mathematical formula.
ReplyDeleteRussell said, "Everything is vague to a degree you do not realize till you have tried to make it precise." This reminds me of something one of my teachers told me in high school. He said that you know that you truly understand something whenever you are able to explain it in a simple way. But some things, like language, can not really be made to have a precise structure. However, I think this is what makes language fun in a way. Without the vagueness of language, there would be no need for literature classes completely based on interpreting different works. (Wait..... maybe this is a good idea.. can I go back and help Russell work on this so Lit classes go away?)
DQ: Do we have a purpose on Earth?
If so, does this make us not free?
FQ: Which philosophical belief based on the absurdity of human existence became a cult? Answer: Existentialism
I understand why Russel tried to make language more mathematical, where you have a set formula and you fill in a few key words that works out every time. How much easier would it be to write an essay with out constantly thinking diction diction diction or worrying about the connotation of every word? It would be easier, but we would loss the art of writing and everything would read like madlibs.
ReplyDeleteSome of you may remember that I touched on another one of Russel's philosophies in my midterm presentation-- his teapot. That is to say, the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.
ReplyDeleteTo read more about it, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
Just gonna add Paul McCartney into our conversation cause, ya know, it's an interesting link.
ReplyDeletehttp://youtu.be/N3m2r0Ln0rU
DQ: Do you think Bertrand Russell's voice is peculiar and it's funny when he gets a little agitated in his speech?
- I sure do. On a seriousish note though, you can tell how much he cares about language just by the way he talks and picks his words in a conversational setting.
In group 1 we talked about dreaming and why we dream. There are several theories on this topic. Many people think they are composed on events throughout one's day. Another is that they are repressed feelings.
ReplyDeleteIn group 2 we talked about Russell. He had unique ideas on linguistics. He believed there was a science behind linguistics,
In group 3 we discussed near death experiences. We talked about how it is probably very likely to have one's life flash before one's eyes during this sort of experience. It could definitely cause one to rethink his or her opinions.
FQ: Who thought there was a set of rules behind linguistics?
Answer: Russell
DQ: Are there near death experiences?