Quotessence
Home / Topics / Bertrand Russell Quotes

Bertrand Russell Quotes

Browse 15 quotes about Bertrand Russell.

Bertrand Russell Quotes

“When you come to look into this argument from design, it is a most astonishing thing that people can believe that this world, with all the things that are in it, with all its defects, should be the best that omnipotence and omniscience have been able to produce in millions of years. I really cannot believe it. Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the Fascists? Moreover, if you accept the ordinary laws of science, you have to suppose that human life and life in general on this planet will die out in due course: it is a stage in the decay of the solar system; at a certain stage of decay you get the sort of conditions of temperature and so forth which are suitable to protoplasm, and there is life for a short time in the life of the whole solar system. You see in the moon the sort of thing to which the earth is tending -- something dead, cold, and lifeless.”

PhilosophyGodReligionMoonBertrand RussellRussellArgument From DesignWhy I Am Not A Christian
Author:Bertrand Russell
Create image

“Russell is reputed at a dinner party once to have said, ‘Oh, it is useless talking about inconsistent things, from an inconsistent proposition you can prove anything you like.’ Well, it is very easy to show this by mathematical means. But, as usual, Russell was much cleverer than this. Somebody at the dinner table said, 'Oh, come on!’ He said, 'Well, name an inconsistent proposition,’ and the man said, 'Well, what shall we say, 2 = 1.’ 'All right,’ said Russell, 'what do you want me to prove?’ The man said, 'I want you to prove that you’re the pope.’ 'Why,’ said Russell, 'the pope and I are two, but two equals one, therefore the pope and I are one.”

PhilosophyLogicMathBertrand RussellJacob BronowskiLogical Inconsistency
Book:The Origins of Knowledge and Imagination
Create image

“...what about the stone, Mr Lovegood? The thing you call the Resurrection Stone?" "What of it?" "Well, how can that be real?" "Prove that it is not," said Xenophilius. Hermione looked outraged. "But that's—I'm sorry, but that's completely ridiculous! How can I possibly prove it doesn't exist? Do you expect me to get hold of—of all the pebbles in the world, and test them? I mean, you could claim that anything's real if the only basis for believing in it is that nobody's proved it doesn't exist!”

AtheismLogicReasoningAgnosticismBurden Of ProofBertrand RussellCelestial Teapot
Book:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
Create image

“Earlier fundamental work of Whitehead, Russell, Wittgenstein, Carnap, Whorf, etc., as well as my own attempt to use this earlier thinking as an epistemological base for psychiatric theory, led to a series of generalizations: That human verbal communication can operate and always does operate at many contrasting levels of abstraction. These range in two directions from the seemingly simple denotative level (“The cat is on the mat”). One range or set of these more abstract levels includes those explicit or implicit messages where the subject of discourse is the language. We will call these metalinguistic (for example, “The verbal sound ‘cat’ stands for any member of such and such class of objects”, or “The word, ‘cat’ has no fur and cannot scratch”). The other set of levels of abstraction we will call metacommunicative (e.g., “My telling you where to find the cat was friendly”, or “This is play”). In these, the subject of discourse is the relationship between the speakers. It will be noted that the vast majority of both metalinguistic and metacommunicative messages remain implicit; and also that, especially in the psychiatric interview, there occurs a further class of implicit messages about how metacommunicative messages of friendship and hostility are to be interpreted.”

PhilosophyScienceLogicWittgensteinBertrand RussellRussellLudwig WittgensteinWhiteheadLudwig Josef Johann WittgensteinAlfred North WhiteheadCarnapAlfred WhiteheadBenjamin Lee WhorfBenjamin WhorfBertrand Arthur William RussellRudolf CarnapWhorf
Author:Gregory Bateson
Create image

“The deeply irrational attitude of each sex toward women may be seen in novels, particularly in bad novels. In bad novels by men, there is the woman with whom the author is in love, who usually possesses every charm, but is somewhat helpless, and requires male protection; sometimes, however, like Shakespeare’s Cleopatra, she is an object of exasperated hatred, and is thought to be deeply and desperately wicked. In portraying the heroine, the male author does not write from observation, but merely objectifies his own emotions. In regard to his other female characters, he is more objective, and may even depend upon his notebook; but when he is in love, his passion makes a mist between him and the object of his devotion. Women novelists, also, have two kinds of women in their books. One is themselves, glamorous and kind, and object of lust to the wicked and of love to the good, sensitive, highsouled, and constantly misjudged. The other kind is represented by all other women, and is usually portrayed as petty, spiteful, cruel, and deceitful. It would seem that to judge women without bias is not easy either for men or for women.”

MenPhilosophyWomenBertrand Russell
Book:An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish: A Hilarious Catalogue of Organized and Individual Stupidity
Create image

“Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man.”

FearThoughtBertrand Russell
Book:Quotable Bertrand Russell
Create image

“McGrath briefly notes Bertrand Russell's Why I am not a Christian, and J. J. C. Smart gets a single mention, as does Adolf Grünbaum, but the other major defenders of philosophical atheism of the last half-century do not even merit a nod. His index contains no listings for Antony Flew, Wallace Matson, Kai Nielsen, Richard Gale, William L. Rowe, Michael Martin, J. L. Mackie, Daniel Dennett, Evan Fales, Michael Tooley, Quentin Smith, Jordan Howard Sobel, Robin Le Poidevin, Theodore Drange, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Nicholas Everitt, J. L. Schellenberg, or Graham Oppy.”

Bertrand RussellAtheist PhilosophersDaniel DennettWhy I Am Not A ChristianAntony FlewGraham OppyPhilosophical AtheismAdolf GrunbaumEvan FalesJ J C SmartJ L MackieJ L SchellenbergJordan Howard SobelKai NielsenMichael MartinMichael TooleyNicholas EverittQuentin SmithRichard GaleRobin Le PoidevinTheodore DrangeWallace MatsonWalter Sinnott ArmstrongWilliam L Rowe
Author:Keith Parsons
Create image

“De toneelschool waar ik in 1969 een jaar lang de afwas deed bevond zich in een oud kasteel in Devon, Dartington Hall, ooit een buiten van Hendrik de Achtste. Dartington was niet de ideale tussenstop op weg naar een filosofische faculteit. Het was onder meer een beroemde kostschool die werd bevolkt door een heerlijke troep artistiekerige jongelui die zichzelf te 'gevoelig' achtten voor zoiets 'rationeels' als de filosofie. Zij waren allemaal kunstenaars in de dop en geloofden heilig in het verschil tussen voelen en denken. Zij dansten, musiceerden en schilderden. Ik waste af. En 's avonds keken we allemaal naar de sterren. Ik wilde niet afwassen, ik wilde filosofie studeren, maar ik kende niemand die mij kon helpen of adviseren. In mijn onwetendheid had ik een boek van Karl Jaspers uit Nederland meegenomen: een Aula-pocket met de titel 'Kant'. Wat een teleurstelling. Ik kon het niet volgen en begon me een beetje grimmig te voelen tegenover die ongenaakbare citadel van filosofie, waarbinnen men naar ik hoopte aan de diepste vragen over mens, god en wereld sleutelde, zonder mij er evenwel in te laten. Ik kon tenminste nergens een toegang ontdekken en bleef buiten staan mokken, totdat ik op een dag in de familiebibliotheek in Darlington Russells 'History of Western Philosophy' ontdekte en voor onbeperkte tijd mocht lenen. UIt de sombere burcht die ik had opgedroomd, kwam deze opgewekte man naar buiten drentelen en met één handgebaar veegde hij mijn verongelijktheid weg. Met die ondeugende jongensachtige scherpte die het kenmerk is van zijn schrijven en denken, neemt Russell zijn lezers mee op een onvergetelijke reis door vijfentwintig eeuwen westerse filosofie. Je leest hem zo graag omdat je je steeds van zijn aanwezigheid bewust bent, terwijl hij Plato, Augustinus of Descartes voor je uitlegt. Afgezien van al die filosofen, kom je in dit boek vooral ook Bertrand Russell tegen en dat is een onvergetelijke ontmoetong.”

FilosofieBertrand Russell
Book:Vroeger waren we onsterfelijk
Create image

“Russell’s Teapot (Celestial Teapot Analogy) We cannot equate Russell’s teapot idea with the idea of God. Although this idea is humorous, it isn't very sensible. If anybody without scientific credentials stated thoughtfully that the teapot is circling the Sun, the majority of people would think that a person saying that is either bipolar, schizophrenic, or suffers from some other mental illness. This kind of comparison is absurd. Comic and absurdist comparisons of this kind only muddy the waters. Proof or disproof of such a thing is unnecessary because almost everybody knows the teapot can't orbit the Sun as freely as planets on a microcosmic or macro level. Regardless of Russel being aware that his example is nonsense, he still used it (and he states that). The point was not to prove anything but to make a funny remark to diminish the subject of the attack, God. It is a logical fallacy whenever we use such tactics or tricks because we use witty comments for lacking something more potent. If we make fun of some ideas, it does not mean they have no value. We cannot destroy an idea that has existed for millennia by witty but silly arguments. Carl Sagan made an even sillier argument about the undetectable dragon in his garage. To compare the idea of God to the teapot or a dragon in a garage is a useless way to refute an idea or argument with an “argument” (example) in the form of funny irony. I admire Bertrand Russell and Carl Sagan for their ingenuity and insights. I also admire Bertrand Russell’s writing style because he could express complicated ideas and concepts in very readable and clear prose. There can be no comparison between the idea of God and a teapot floating around the Sun or between God and an unidentifiable dragon in the garage. We cannot base our arguments on the value of their wit because regardless of how witty the statement is, it has to stand the test of truth, not the test of wit. We can easily exclude the idea of a teapot floating in orbit around the Sun as ridiculous. The same applies to the argument about the dragon in a garage. But can we exclude the idea of God from religious and theological thoughts and serious philosophical inquiries interested in discovering the truth about the world and God? We can easily refuse to accept a teapot or dragon in the garage as serious arguments. However, we cannot a priori deny the legitimacy of the idea about God, at least not the deist one (or pantheistic).”

GodReligionUniverseCosmosDejan StojanovicAbsoluteCarl SaganBertrand RussellTeapot
Book:ABSOLUTE
Create image

“I remember the philosopher Bertrand Russell was asked why he spent his time protesting against nuclear war and getting arrested on demonstrations. Why didn’t he continue to work on the serious philosophical and logical problems which have major intellectual significance? And his answer was pretty good. He said: “Look, if I and others like me only work on those problems, there won’t be anybody around to appreciate it or be interested.”

ActivismBertrand Russell
Author:Chomsky Noam
Create image