"Philosophy,
as I shall understand the word, is
something
intermediate between theology and science"
(B.Russell, 'A History
of Western Philosophy', p.10).
*
"Philosophy,
as I shall understand the word, is
something
intermediate between theology and science"
(B.Russell, 'A History
of Western Philosophy', p.10).
*
/ Newsgroups: alt.philosophy and alt.religion.apologetics /
/ Forum > TheologyOnline: Philosophy ~ Religion / 09oct02 /
"No historical situation could be more conducive to the emergence
of prophets than ours ... At this point humanity needs prophets,
even though it is doubtful whether their voice will prevail against
that of the priests" (from "Prophets and Priests" by E. Fromm,
in 'Bertrand Russell - Philosopher of the Century').
.
Dear Cyber-Saints, in this fascinating essay the noted author
and psychologist Erich Fromm forwards the strange opinion that
Bertrand Russell was not only a philosopher but a prophet as
well. It is a strange (and surprising) proposal chiefly because
Russell can hardly be accused of being a religious man (ie. in
the conventional sense). Obviously, Fromm's understanding of
the term 'prophets' departs significantly from the common and
usual understanding. So our first order of business is to set
forth Fromm's psychological definition of this type of human
creature:
.
"Those who announce ideas - and not necessarily new ones -
and at the same time live them we may call *prophets*. The Old
Testament prophets did precisely that: they announced the idea
that man had to find an answer to his existence, and that this
answer was the development of his reason, of his love; and they
taught that humility and justice were inseparably connected
with love and reason. They lived what they preached. They did
not seek power, but avoided it. Not even the power of being a
prophet. They were not impressed by might, and they spoke
the truth even if this led them to imprisonment, ostracism or
death. They were not men who set themselves apart and
waited to see what would happen. They responded to their
fellowman, because they felt responsible. What happened to
others happened to them. Humanity was not outside, but
within them. Precisely because they saw the truth they felt
the responsibility to tell it; they did not threaten, but they
showed the *alternatives* with which man was confronted. ...
It is the function of the prophet to show reality, to show
alternatives and to protest; it is his function to call loudly,
to awake man from his customary half slumber. It is the
historical situation which makes prophets - not the wish of
some men to be prophets" (p.67-8).
.
Among those who manifested their ideas in their 'flesh' (ie.
in their daily living), Fromm mentions some well known names:
Buddha, Christ, Socrates, and Spinoza. And I could also add a
few more names of my own to this list, such as: Soren and Leo,
Mother Teresa, and Gandhi. As for the priests, they are "the
men who make use of the idea the prophets have announced".
"The priests use the idea to organize men, to control them
through controlling the proper expression of the idea ..."
and so fourth.
.
As for Russell: "Among the few in whom the idea has become
manifest in the flesh, and whom the historical situation of
mankind has transformed from teachers into prophets, is
Bertrand Russell. He happens to be a great thinker but that
is not really essential to his being a prophet. He, together
with Einstein and Schweitzer, represents the answer of
Western humanity to the threat to its existence ..." (p.69).
.
But if Russell's always amazing brain is not essential to his
nature and character as a prophet, what is? Basically it is
the virtues or characteristics of his actions through which he
embodies in his life the ideas that he teaches. Fromm describes
a few such prophet-like qualities that Russell's life displays.
Chief among these is his disobedience, by which Fromm means
the revolutionary disobedience of the aware and committed man;
as opposed to the pointless and impotent disobedience of the
'rebel without a cause' (that characterizes so much of the
younger generation) which never wanders far from the impulse
to 'just say no' to everything.
.
Another quality that Russell shares with the prophets is
faith: "Bertrand Russell is a man of faith. Not of faith in the
theological sense, but of faith in the power of reason, faith
in man's capacity to create his own paradise through his own
efforts" (76). "This faith is rooted in a quality without which
neither his philosophy nor his fight against war could be
understood: his love for life" (77). For Fromm this is of prime
importance, since there "is indeed no greater distinction among
human beings than that between those who love life and those
who love death" (78-79).
.
The third quality of the philosopher-prophet is easy to state:
"Bertrand Russell is a man of belief" (79). Now Fromm doesn't
really explain what he means by this declaration, but it is not
necessary to reject it on that basis, since Russell is clearly
a man of many strong beliefs (ie. they can be found in almost
all of his writings). Another characteristic that makes Russell
like unto the prophets is his concern for the future: "He warns
the world of impending doom precisely as the prophets did,
because he loves life and all its forms and manifestations"(79).
.
We can even add a fifth characteristic (one that Fromm seems
to imply, but makes no explicit mention of), and this is the
rather obvious idea that Russell is a warrior for truth, just
as the prophets are. In fact, this last quality is something
that all true prophets and philosophers share, and to that
end Russell's being as a great thinker is, if not exactly
essential, still highly relevant to his being a prophet
(and a writer).
.
Now the teachings of the philosopher Karl Jaspers suggests
to us that the philosopher's closest kin is not the prophet,
but rather the scientist. And there is much to be said for this
view (eg. since philosophers and scientists are both concerned
with things like reason, logic, facts, evidence, validity,
etc). But I would say that the prophet's concern for truth
is in no sense inferior to that of the philosophers and
scientists. Indeed, the prophet exceeds them both in this
regard, in that the prophet's conception of truth is more
expansive and all-embracing than that of most philosophers,
and far less restrictive and mundane than that of most
scientists. Of course, we offer Russell as solid evidence
of the correctness of this view.
.
Another thing that suggests the closer kinship of prophets and
philosophers is that they are both concerned with intangible
and unmeasurable realities, such as love and wisdom. But the
scientist has no need for things like wisdom and morality;
just as the businessman has no use for things like love and
beauty. In the cosmos of the over-constrained mind, intangible
realities are entirely subjective (which to say, worthless and
useless), but both philosophers and prophets know better than
that, for the world they see and speak of can never be reduced
to merely material or perceptible realities.
.
It would appear, then, that there is much strength in Fromm's
expansive understanding of prophets and priests, but it cannot
simply be left in this form (as it leaves too many unanswered
questions hanging out). There is still a significant difference
between philosophers and prophets, and this distinction can
only be made apparent by recognizing and acknowledging the
differences between pagan-prophets (eg. Russell and Nietzsche),
and their more traditional religious counterparts.
.
Of the latter, the best example is Soren Kierkegaard, who is
widely recognized as a philosopher (ie. as a pioneer of what
later came to be known as existentialism), but who is in fact a
prophet first, last, and always. Kierkegaard shows us that the
distinction between philosopher and prophet is in many respects
an artificial one (that the believer can and should transcend).
.
Another good modern prophet is Leo Tolstoy, who is widely
recognized as a great writer of novels, but who is never
acknowledged as a prophet. These two modern Christian
prophets also show us that the difference between pagan
and religious prophets is chiefly a matter of faith in God (hardly
an insignificant item). But the total lack of recognition on
the part of the world suggests to us that most people remain
entirely ignorant of the prophets (ie. who and what they are),
and *this* colossal blindness is a very serious problem that not
even Fromm's enlightened perspective is likely to overcome.
.
Thus we applaud the good herr doctor for recognizing in
Russell the presence of a prophet (or at the very least a
loyal servant of honesty, love, and truth), but now we must
apply this insight not just to his life, but to his writings as a
whole. Now Russell wrote some fifty books in his long literary
career, and I can't claim to have read them all (or even
most of them), so I am doubtless talking out of turn in
what follows, but it seems to me that one can almost trace
Russell's growth as a prophet by following his books in a
roughly chronological order.
.
Thus his "prophetic consciousness" (if we can rightly speak
of such a thing in Russell's case) is entirely absent in his
earliest books: 'The Foundations Of Geometry' (1897), 'The
Principles of Mathematics' (1903), and 'Principia Mathematica'
(1910-13); is barely discernible in 'The Problems of
Philosophy' (1912), but then gradually grows stronger and
stronger until it reaches a peak during the years of the
Second World War.
.
'A History of Western Philosophy' was written in America at
that time, and that achievement was every inch the act of a
prophet outraged at the self-inflicted madness of the world.
If these absurd claims seem utterly ridiculous to the reader,
I suggest he examines carefully the book in question, for
it is an outstanding example of prophetic literature at its
very finest.
.
From our prophetically-biased standpoint therefore, it is
relatively easy to evaluate Russell's 50 in a general way.
We can begin by saying that Russell's Nobel Prize for
literature was well-earned, and that he is indeed the number
one philosopher of the twentieth century. In his life he was
always the skeptical-prophet. In his writings he was always
the reluctant analyst.
.
As to these writings, we recognize the importance of Russell's
early scientific work for the various philosophical departments
concerned, but we must also affirm that these hard-core
philosophical achievements pale in comparison to the flurry of
popular essays and books that constitutes the bulk of Russell's
furious fifty. And if Russell is the greatest philosopher-
prophet of the twentieth century, then 'A History of Western
Philosophy' is clearly the most important single book written
in said century. Accordingly, no believer should rest content
in his or her faith without having a copy under the pillow at
all times.
.
In conclusion, Russell is a prophet because of his faith
(conviction), hope (concern for the future), and love. His love
is expressed through his actions of civil disobedience, just as
his beliefs and convictions are expressed through his writings.
The prophet can be a man of action, or a man of letters. In
Russell we find both.
.
- the almost intangible one - textman ;>>
.
P.S. "Observe with the mind, and do not sit
there with wondering eyes." - Empedocles
x
+
/ Subject > Re: Is Lord Russell a Prophet? /
/ Newsgroups: alt.philosophy and alt.religion.apologetics /
/ Forum > TheologyOnline: Philosophy ~ Religion / 12oct02 /
.
> On 10oct Mike Dubbeld ([email protected]) wrote: Like most
> other Western philosophers I don't think much of Russell
> either.
.
textman say: NO! Golly, I'm like *SO* shocked to hear that!
.
> A prophet merely tells me you are scrapping the
> bottom of the barrel.
.
Wut da hell iz dat!? What kinda prophet would tell you that
I'm "scrapping the bottom of the barrel"? Whose barrel is
Russell the bottom of anyway, eh? Most philosophers, when
pressed into a corner about it, would have to admit (at the
very least) that Russell's contributions have SOME merit;
although they do not agree as to where exactly these alleged
best merits may lie ... (of course).
.
But you, sir mike, know better than all these clever people,
it seems. You have it all figured out in advance, such that
there is no need to waste any time reading Russell's very
insignificant and ultimately meaningless scribblings. No
indeed. So easy. Just toss *ALL* of Russell's furious fifty
into the trash, and pretend like they never happened. Right.
Just stick to the Vedas and we'll all be just fine!
.
... Right
.
> Yes, maybe he belongs with all those Old Testament
> philosophers that were good at inventing stories
> and getting them wrong.
.
I disagree entirely. Firstly, getting some of the details
wrong is one thing; getting the stories entirely wrong is
altogether another claim. Nor does Russell fit your biased
description as well as Tolstoy does. The latter does resemble
the Hebrew prophets in many ways. And was a story-teller far
beyond the normal limits of genius. Since Russell is not at
all a prophet in that sense, it would appear that friend mike
here is thus three times wrong! Not bad for only twenty words.
.
I'm like very impressed with mike :D
.
> Pretty deep stuff to be standing in to call
> Russell a Prophet. -- Mike Dubbeld
.
I agree that it's a fanciful idea in some respects. And, in
fact, it did rather surprise me to see the good herr doktor
announce it so baldly. However and nevertheless, the idea does
have some merits, even beyond the limits of Fromm's thinking,
and if you cannot appreciate this 'announcement of dubious-
news', then that says much about your limits too.
.
Have you even read any of Russell's books? Have you read and
understood his History of Western Philosophy? Have you read
each and every page of it from cover to cover in one go with
no interruptions please?!? Somehow I doubt it. What then
are we to make of someone who so casually dismisses a great
philosopher? ... along with a lifetime of work (born of long
labor drenched with blood, sweat, and tears already!), without
even going to the bother of actually reading the damn stuff?!?!
.
- one who re-announces dubious news - textman ;>
.
P.S. Dear Reader, please don't think that the offensive one
has been too harsh on friend mike in this here epistle; for he
surely had it coming. Big time! Sometimes you have to spank
naughty children just to get their attention. Trust me on this.
So in parting I would just want to add that I'm very sorry,
mike. But that's what you get for dissin my favorite dog!
x
+
/ Subject > Re: Is Lord Russell a Prophet? /
/ Newsgroups: alt.philosophy and alt.religion.apologetics /
/ Forum > TheologyOnline: Philosophy ~ Religion / 17Nov02 /
.
> On Oct13 Mike Dubbeld ([email protected]) wrote: <snip>
> Hey, if you read comic books all your life I can
> understand you marveling at Russell.
.
textman replies: Hi Mike. Well now, that's just
downright *NASTY* that is! :)
.
>> textman: I disagree entirely. Firstly, getting some of the
>> details wrong is one thing; getting the stories entirely
>> wrong is altogether another claim. Nor does Russell fit your
>> biased description as well as Tolstoy does. The latter does
>> resemble the Hebrew prophets in many ways. And was a story-
>> teller far beyond the normal limits of genius. Since
>> Russell is not at all a prophet in that sense, it would
>> appear that friend mike here is thus three times wrong!
>> Not bad for only twenty words.
.
> You know what they say opinions like yours are like
> personal waste disposal systems - everybody has one.
.
Friend Mike is here confusing objective judgments with
subjective tastes. Such a mistake is usually a sure sign that
the person who tends to reduce 'truth' to 'opinion' is someone
who is very deficient in the art of philosophy! That would
include most believers AND most unbelievers too.
.
>> I'm like very impressed with mike :D
.
> Thanks.
.
Don't thank me, Mike. You just pointed out yourself that
I'm easily impressed! ha
.
>>> Pretty deep stuff to be standing in to call
>>> Russell a Prophet. -- Mike Dubbeld
.
>> I agree that it's a fanciful idea in some respects. And, in
>> fact, it did rather surprise me to see the good herr doktor
>> announce it so baldly. However and nevertheless, the idea
>> does have some merits, even beyond the limits of Fromm's
>> thinking, and if you cannot appreciate this 'announcement
>> of dubious-news', then that says much about your limits
>> too. Have you even read any of Russell's books? Have you
>> read and understood his History of Western Philosophy?
.
> It is pretty sad and boring - but it IS funny.
.
That's what a lot of philosopher-pharisees think; including
the great-fool himself, Ludwig Wittgenstein. double-ha
.
> I like to think of it as a comedy of tragic errors. Start
> with the pre-socratics and go down hill from there.
.
I also often see it as "a comedy of tragic errors", but one
that *gradually* leads us uphill, not downhill. So I guess that
makes you the 'glass half-empty' guy, while I'm the 'glass
half-full' guy. Obviously we have nothing to say to say to
each other, since we don't even live in the same universe!
.
>> Have you read each and every page of it from cover to cover
>> in one go with no interruptions please?!? Somehow I doubt
>> it. What then are we to make of someone who so casually
>> dismisses a great philosopher?
.
> I bet you read spiderman comics when not reading Russell.
.
No; actually, I'm reading guys like B.Croce, T.Carlyle,
and R.Scruton at the moment. So Nyah!
.
>> P.S. Dear Reader, please don't think that the offensive one
>> has been too harsh on friend mike in this here epistle; for
>> he surely had it coming. Big time! Sometimes you have to
>> spank naughty children just to get their attention. Trust
>> me on this. So in parting I would just want to add that I'm
>> very sorry, mike. But that's what you get for dissin my
>> favorite dog! :D
.
> Tell you what. Be nice and you too can be a troll.
.
I'm already a *major* troll (according to the Cats, anyway),
so there's not much to shoot for there. You trying to bust
me down to a private-first-class troll? Thx for nuthin!
.
> At least Whitehead admitted defeat
.
I'm SO *not* impressed!
.
> (he is of the Russell vintage)
.
A highly debatable assertion, methinks.
.
> when he said that all of Western philosophy is footnotes
> to Plato - including his own.
.
His own philosophy is more like footnotes to Descartes.
.
> Shame Plato screwed things up so bad/put the whole gang
> on the wrong track.
.
Not true; Aristotle corrected Plato's worst errors.
.
> But hey - take solace. There are boatloads of philosophers
> just like you who are at least as impressed with this
> stuff. -- Mike Dubbeld
.
Hey, Mike, do you suppose there are people who are
impressed by my writings too (he asks hopefully)?
.
- one who aspires to footnote status - ttextman ;>
.
P.S. "The good life is one inspired by love and
guided by knowledge." -- Bertrand Russell
(twentieth century English philosopher-prophet)
x
Goto More Minors