<p>read it, it's good.</p>
<p>I hear Russell is currently penning the sequel, from his home in Hell.</p>
<p>LMAO (10 char)</p>
<p>Is this the same guy who wrote Why I Am Not a Muslim?</p>
<p>Yeah, but Why I Am Not a Muslim isn't as good as Why I Am Not a Jew and Why I Am Not a Sikh.</p>
<p>I need to write book 'Why I Am Not A Writer Who Writes "Why I Am Not" Books' right now.</p>
<p>if Bertrand Russell isn't any of the stuff he wrote about, then what is he?</p>
<p>Maybe he doesn't know. It sure is easier to look at a list of facts and say, nope, don't agree, than it is to actually come up with the list yourself. </p>
<p>I know from experience. People knock me for not having an organized religion, but I really find the entire pursuit somewhat futile. If you make a list you are bound to be costantly changing it, adapting it...and that's why organized religions are as ineffectual as a set of morals that comes from the "heart". It's all just the product of how people felt when they wrote it. It's impossible to "be" anything at the core that you can put on a piece of paper...</p>
<p>"if Bertrand Russell isn't any of the stuff he wrote about, then what is he?"</p>
<p>He'd say he's agnostic.</p>
<p>He was a smart cookie- chocolate chip, I believe. :)</p>
<p>Russell was a hack. Not because he bashed christians. I liked that part. He was just a bad philosopher.</p>
<p>Why do you say that, discostu? In what ways was he bad?</p>
<p>I'm not going to comment on Russell's philosophy of mathematics, because I know nothing of the "philosophy of mathematics," but I take issue with this ethical, political, and social stances. </p>
<p>I have basic philosophical differences with him: I'm a platonist, he's not. He believes ethics do not belong in philosophy, I believe it's the central and most important part of philosophy. If we're to assume modern philosophy is a descendant of Socrates, then we need to take into account Socrates' aim. Socrates was preoccupied with ethics, not logic. He strove, through inductive reason, to make people question their values and actions. He strove to find universal definitions, such as courage, piety, justice, etc. He believed one should strive for the good life, and the good life is based on searching for wisdom and virtue. (well, one should also strive for the truth, but that doesn't relate to what I'm talking about)</p>
<p>While I whole heartedly support his attack on Christianity, I don't agree with his stance on marriage. I don't believe in christian marriages, but I believe in symbolic or state sponsored marriage: the union of two people because they are in LOVE. I do not believe Russell had any conception of love, as he never really experienced it in his life. He shouldn't comment on what he's never. </p>
<p>Russell supported marital infidelity. This is fine in a christian marriage, because christian marriages have other aims besides love. In the marriage I concieve, if two people are going to be unfaithful to each other, there's no reason to be married. I believe marriage should be nothing more than the union of two people through love. If they're unfaithful, they obviously don't love each other. </p>
<p>Finally, he believed Bolshevism and Communism were necessary forces in the world, that they were heroic, and he considered it more highly than the French Revolutin in terms of establishing freedom. As we know now, communism is not necessary in the world, nor is it desirable as the best method for giving freedom to the individual. The best method for guaranteeing freedom is a constitutional government where the people and the leaders are both kept in check by a strong, difficult to change constitution that not only guarantees rights, but strictly limits the role of government. (I don't have the US in mind when I say this. The US constitution has far too many loopholes, such as the "necessary and proper clause," that allows the government to do whatever it wants. That, and the US government is far too big.)</p>