Although it was not a real promise to write yet another
time on Russell, nevertheless once I have said that I may return to him sooner
or later I feel it as a kind of obligation to do so. And since there is a
saying that you must never put off till tomorrow what you can do today, I think
the best is to write about him now.
I reread the chapter “The Limits of Philosophical
Knowledge” in Russell’s book The Problems
of Philosophy, but when I asked myself what I should say about it, I
realized that I had not so much to add to my criticism written a few weeks ago.
For also in this chapter Russell’s view on philosophy (as treated here and in the whole book) is somewhat limited and
moreover it is a bit outdated. When Russell thinks of philosophy he thinks of epistemological
issues in the first place, so questions in the field of knowledge. But as I
have written four weeks ago, there is so much more in philosophy. Now it is so
that Russell himself writes in this chapter that “we have scarcely touched on
many matters that occupy a great space in the writings of most philosophers.
Most philosophers – or, at any rate, very many – profess to be able to prove,
by a priori metaphysical reasoning,
such things as the fundamental dogmas of religion, the essential rationality of
the universe, the illusoriness of matter, the unreality of all evil, and so
on.” (p. 82) And then he thinks of philosophers like Kant and Hegel. However,
according to Russell, such problems cannot be solved by philosophy but only by
science. That’s true, I think, but I doubt whether most, or otherwise very many
philosophers spent their time in Russel’s days and before on the themes just
mentioned and on related themes. I think that there were also quite a lot of philosophers
who reflected on other themes, and they were not the least important. I guess
that there were more of them than Russell thought. A case in point is
Nietzsche. And when I was developing the ideas that led to my dissertation, I
spent much time on studying the works of the German philosopher Wilhelm Dilthey
(1833-1911), who transformed the method of explaining texts into a general
method for the social sciences. By doing so he developed the method of
Verstehen (understanding) and in this way he became one of the founders of the
philosophy of action (still today one of the lively branches of philosophy).
Dilthey was also an important contributor to the so-called Lebensphilosophie (philosophy of life). A few other philosophers I
want to mention yet without further explanation are Montaigne, Rousseau and
Karl Marx. All these philosophers (with the exception of Dilthey) are mentioned
in Russell’s History of Western
Philosophy.
But by writing in this way on Russell I tend to ignore
his great contributions to philosophy. For example, his critique on set theory
led to a shock in the world of mathematics around 1900. I am not a
mathematician, so I can’t explain you the ins and outs in detail and in a accessible
way, but who doesn’t know the story of the Barber of Seville? And then I don’t
mean Rossini’s opera but the barber in this town who had written on the
signboard of his shop “I shave all men who do not shave themselves” (implying: and only men who do not
shave themselves). It’s a paradox, for what about the barber himself? The story
has been told in another version by Lewis Carroll and has been used by Russell
to criticize the set theory, for does or doesn’t the barber belong to the set
of his clients? The set theory couldn’t tell and finally the problem was solved
by changing the rules that define a set. It seems that there is nothing as easy
as that: When you can’t solve it, ignore it. In a positive way we can say, of
course, that a mistake in the set theory was eliminated in the sense of
Popper’s error elimination. It’s the way science develops. Nevertheless, it
looks a bit like a trick. Moreover, actually the entire paradox is based on the
prejudice that the barber is not a woman.
No comments:
Post a Comment