In my study I have a portrait of Bertrand Russell over the fire place. There is a paper he signed framed with the portrait that he hand wrote, which simply states: “Remember your humanity and forget the rest.” I often look up at the when I am doing philosophy. The quote of course is in relation to ending the nuclear arms race, which became a popular mantra of his. As much as I respect Russell as a mathematical logician, I have always appreciated the emotional and human side of his character. And while Russell himself would be the first to admit how flawed his character could be, I find great inspiration in his writings for the things I hold most dear, and the passions I most feel in this world. Perhaps others would agree, so I would like to share a clip that I have often enjoyed.
Tom
Trin Turner
Scott Pellegrino
joshuaupson
Thanks for sharing, Scott. We’ve both severely disagreed with many of Russell’s conclusions, but never with his integrity or his honesty. And Keyworth loved to quote the guy, so what’s not to love?
Its certainly true we have had some real disagreements with Russell, particularly at Drake. I feel you would probably agree with me too that as a founder of analytic philosophy, it is an impossibly unfair view to imagine a pioneer that blazes a new trail getting it all right.
I admire his rigor and his attention to detail, his compartmentalizing as much as humanly possible what he wants to be true vs. what evidence we have for what is true. I suppose the thing I disagree with Russell the most about is his theory of denotation in philosophy of language. It set the stage for a strange 20th century debate over through Quine as to whether we can speak in logic about non-referring ideas. The very notion that we cannot speak logically of unicorns or Sherlock Holmes simply because we cannot verify a denoting reference has always seem to me one of the most bizarre needs of many analytic philosophers, culminating in Quine’s interpretation of existential generalization banishing such things from logical space, which I never did agree with him (Terence Parsons, UCLA, wrote a very good rebuttal to Quine on this point). If we admit the meaning and the definition, the semantic structure of a scientific theoretical entity or a conversation on metaphor or fictional narration, we only need admit that we are describing its content and a logical category of truth that in no way commits us to their physical reality. Limiting logical analysis and the use of language to denoting states of affairs is just a strange incomplete empiricism.
Scott, would you allow the Bertrand Russell Archives to have a copy of Russell’s handwritten sentence?
Ken, I would be happy to provide a copy for the Bertrand Russell Archives. My email is scottpellegrino@hotmail.com if you would like to discuss specifics.