Bertrand Russell vs. John-Paul Sartre

[Cypress]

Positivism vs. Existentialism

Here, we focus on two of the most influential intellectual movements of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries: positivism and existentialism. We illustrate this by focusing on two of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century, Bertrand Russell, the British logician and philosopher (positivism), and John-Paul Sartre, the French existentialist. Both were important public figures of the twentieth century as well as influential thinkers.

Positivism is the view that all the objective knowledge we can have comes through science, that is through experience, experimentation, and observation, filtered through the scientific method.

Existentialists emphasize the engaged and unique experiences of individual persons- personal existence-from which existentialism gets its name.

The two views are diametrically opposed in many ways.

While positivists emphasize objective scientific truth, existentialists speak of what Danish thinker Soren Kierkegaard, the first modern existentialist, called "subjective truth"-the truth I am and live rather than the truth I know in a detached way.

While positivists emphasize abstract reasoning as truth revealing (as in science and mathematics), existentialists emphasize concrete experience and emotions as revelatory of the human condition.

While positivists incline toward scientific accounts of human behavior in terms of heredity and environment, existentialists tend to emphasize individual freedom. We are not entirely made by nature, but make ourselves by our own free choices.




Source credit: Professor Robert H. Kane, The University of Texas at Austin

[Cypress]

The downside imo, is that Russel and Sarte both arrive at moral subjectivism but from different directions.

Russel thinks there is no objective reality to anything which cannot be proven scientifically. So moral values are not real, objective things. They are completely subjective.

Sarte sees existence as highly personal, individualistic, existential. Which makes one's values purely subjective -- in principle, one cannot say that Adolph Hitler's values are any more or less wrong than Nelson Mandela's, in an objective sense.

[BidenPresident]

The downside imo, is that Russel and Sarte both arrive at moral subjectivism but from different directions.

Russel thinks there is no objective reality to anything which cannot be proven scientifically. So moral values are not real, objective things. They are completely subjective.

Sarte sees existence as highly personal, individualistic, existential. Which makes one's values purely subjective -- in principle, one cannot say that Adolph Hitler's values are any more or less wrong than Nelson Mandela's, in an objective sense.

Russell was actually very political and did not remove himself from public affairs.

[BidenPresident]

The best life is the one in which the
creative impulses play the largest part
and the possessive impulses the smallest.
This is no new discovery. The Gospel
says: '' Take no thought, saying, What
shall we eat or What shall we drink or,
Wherewithal shall we be clothed '' The
thought we give to these things is taken
away from matters of more importance.
And what is worse, the habit of mind en-
gendered by thinking of these things is a
bad one; it leads to competition, envy,
domination, cruelty, and almost all the
moral evils that infest the world. In
particular, it leads to the predatory~
of force. Material possessions can be
taken by force and enjoyed by the robber. Spiritual possessions cannot be
taken in this way. You may kill an artist or a thinker, but you cannot acquire
his art or his thought. You may put a
man to death because he loves his fellowmen, but you will not by so doing acquire
the love which made his happiness.

Force is impotent in such matters ; it is
only as regards material goods that it is
effective. For this reason the men who
believe in force are the men whose
thoughts and desires are preoccupied
with material goods."


Political Ideals, Russell

https://www.bing.com/search?q=Bertra...ANCMS9&PC=U531

[Cypress]

The best life is the one in which the
creative impulses play the largest part
and the possessive impulses the smallest.
This is no new discovery. The Gospel
says: '' Take no thought, saying, What
shall we eat or What shall we drink or,
Wherewithal shall we be clothed '' The
thought we give to these things is taken
away from matters of more importance.
And what is worse, the habit of mind en-
gendered by thinking of these things is a
bad one; it leads to competition, envy,
domination, cruelty, and almost all the
moral evils that infest the world. In
particular, it leads to the predatory~
of force. Material possessions can be
taken by force and enjoyed by the robber. Spiritual possessions cannot be
taken in this way. You may kill an artist or a thinker, but you cannot acquire
his art or his thought. You may put a
man to death because he loves his fellowmen, but you will not by so doing acquire
the love which made his happiness.

Force is impotent in such matters ; it is
only as regards material goods that it is
effective. For this reason the men who
believe in force are the men whose
thoughts and desires are preoccupied
with material goods."


Political Ideals, Russell

https://www.bing.com/search?q=Bertra...ANCMS9&PC=U531

Seemingly, one of the most brilliant persons of the 20th century. A real polymath.

[BidenPresident]

Seemingly, one of the most brilliant persons of the 20th century. A real polymath.

American positivists were not political and tried to turn philosophy away from public life. Russell may have written in defense of logical positivism but he did not believe the philosopher should refrain from discussing ethics and politics.

[Cypress]

American positivists were not political and tried to turn philosophy away from public life. Russell may have written in defense of logical positivism but he did not believe the philosopher should refrain from discussing ethics and politics.

Thanks.
My current project is to learn more about Sarte and Russel.

[BidenPresident]

Thanks.
My current project is to learn more about Sarte and Russel.

go for it

[BidenPresident]

Thanks.
My current project is to learn more about Sarte and Russel.

Russell's History of Western Philosophy is very good. Even where I disagree with him, he gives a very good account of other philosophers.

[archives]

Positivism vs. Existentialism

Here, we focus on two of the most influential intellectual movements of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries: positivism and existentialism. We illustrate this by focusing on two of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century, Bertrand Russell, the British logician and philosopher (positivism), and John-Paul Sartre, the French existentialist. Both were important public figures of the twentieth century as well as influential thinkers.

Positivism is the view that all the objective knowledge we can have comes through science, that is through experience, experimentation, and observation, filtered through the scientific method.

Existentialists emphasize the engaged and unique experiences of individual persons- personal existence-from which existentialism gets its name.

The two views are diametrically opposed in many ways.

While positivists emphasize objective scientific truth, existentialists speak of what Danish thinker Soren Kierkegaard, the first modern existentialist, called "subjective truth"-the truth I am and live rather than the truth I know in a detached way.

While positivists emphasize abstract reasoning as truth revealing (as in science and mathematics), existentialists emphasize concrete experience and emotions as revelatory of the human condition.

While positivists incline toward scientific accounts of human behavior in terms of heredity and environment, existentialists tend to emphasize individual freedom. We are not entirely made by nature, but make ourselves by our own free choices.




Source credit: Professor Robert H. Kane, The University of Texas at Austin

Don't see Existentialism as a particularly influential philosophy, reflects the War and post WWII era, and seemingly a favorite of those looking back upon the WWII era, particularly college students of a later time, seems "No Exit" was done by every college theater group everywhere

[BidenPresident]

Don't see Existentialism as a particularly influential philosophy

Nor is logical positivism. Philosophy changes and evolves.

[Cypress]

Don't see Existentialism as a particularly influential philosophy, reflects the War and post WWII era, and seemingly a favorite of those looking back upon the WWII era, particularly college students of a later time, seems "No Exit" was done by every college theater group everywhere

I cannot say existentialism has a lot of traction in the 21st century, but it seemingly was a major theme of philosophical thought in the 19th and 20th centuries: from Neitchze to Kierkegaard, to Sarte.

I also get the impression modernity has adopted some of the the trappings of existentialism, even if we do not remember where those themes come from: aka, the individual is responsible for giving meaning to their life - not churches, religions, or other institutions and social constructs

[BidenPresident]

I cannot say existentialism has a lot of traction in the 21st century, but it seemingly was a major theme of philosophical thought in the 19th and 20th centuries: from Neitchze to Kierkegaard, to Sarte.

I also get the impression modernity has adopted some of the the trappings of existentialism, even if we do not remember where those themes come from: aka, the individual is responsible for giving meaning to their life - not churches, religions, or other institutions and social constructs

Existentialism emphasized the individual, but that was always part of Protestantism.

[Cypress]

Existentialism emphasized the individual, but that was always part of Protestantism.

No doubt, Protestantism chief tenet was eschewing of ecclestatical authority and a establishing democratic preisthood of the laity/individual.

Existentialism generally considered church and religion to be unnecessary for the individual who is responsible only to themselves for finding meaning in life.

[BidenPresident]

No doubt, Protestantism chief tenet was eschewing of ecclestatical authority and a establishing democratic preisthood of the laity.

Existentialism generally considered church and religion to be unnecessary for the individual who is responsible only to themselves for finding meaning in life.

Most philosophers don't really care about religion. Otherwise, they would be theologians.