Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:15, 18 January 2006

Bertrand Russell has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}.

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

• talk page archive

Welshness

Russell happened to be born in Wales, of English parents, and lived there at the very end of his life. As far as I'm aware he never himself claimed to be Welsh, though there are dozens of online sites claiming him to be Welsh on the basis of his birthplace. I'd want to see some evidence that Russell claimed to be Welsh before admitting him to categories of Welsh philosophers, Welsh intellectuals and so on. --  ajn (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you'll never find such evidence, although he loved living in Wales -- 1872-6, most of 1933, 1946-9, and 1956 until his death. Milt 14:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

It is very petty indeed to censure Russell's inclusion in the categories Category:Welsh Mathematicians and Category:Welsh writers. as you say youself, many, many people DO consider Russell to be Welsh, and he was born, spent large portions of his life, and died there. I was nor attempting to remove him from any of the various British categories, but surely it is only reasonable to list him under the country of his birth? I am adding those two Cats back in.--Mais oui! 19:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Geography is being made to count too heavily here. Children born of English parents who were busy ruling India would not be regarded as Indian. Nor did Russell have ethnically Welsh ancestors, despite the entry on Welsh mathematicians saying that he was of "Welsh descent". Ancestrally, he was somewhat Scottish, but not Welsh at all, his parents being English people who liked living over the Monmouthshire county (not country) border. If anyone still thinks Russell was Welsh, why didn't he regard himself as Welsh? He was not careless about such things and knew whereof he spoke. Milt 19:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Milt is quite correct. Russell considered himself to be and was an Englishman. Clearly his parents and grandparents were English, and he is a decendent of the Duke of Bedford, John Russell, an advisor to Henry VIII. He loved Wales, specifically, the Welsh Coast. But that does not make him Welsh, and, as far as I know, he never once declared that he was by preference. I know of no major biography (Clark, Ryan, Monk, Moorehead, Ayer, etc.) or encycopedia entry, including the venerable Encyc. of Philosophy, which states that he is anything other than English. icut4u

Flicking through the autobiography, I can find several references to himself as English, and throughout his writings he uses English and British to refer to his nationality. So if we're going to subcategorise him by nation within the UK (something which I think is unnecessary, like a lot of Misplaced Pages classification), he needs to be classified as an English philosopher, writer etc. Looking at Welsh mathematicians I can see why someone might want to populate it, but that doesn't make Russell's inclusion correct. --  ajn (talk) 09:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's scrutinize the claim that Russell was Welsh. The facts in the claim's favour seem to be that (a) he was born in the area of the United Kingdom known as Wales (although Monmouthshire seems to have been a special case); (b) that he lived for almost 20 of his 97 years in the area; (c) that he died there. Perhaps (a) and (c) are considered by Mais oui! to be sufficient, but I don't know that. I propose that the effect on the rest of Misplaced Pages of determining nationality merely by place of birth, death and perhaps residence be examined. Would there be consequences that contributors like Mais oui! would reject? For example, would Sean Connery's Bahamanian residence make him non-Scottish? Is Salman Rushdie still Indian and Henry Kissinger still German? Was Graham Greene a Swiss novelist? He lived and died there. Milt 16:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

There's also the point that he was educated entirely outside Wales, and did not live there during the period when he produced virtually all of his philosophical and mathematical work. So he might have been Welsh in some sense, but it's daft to call him a "Welsh philosopher". Then again, perhaps he belonged to the class of Welsh people who are not Welsh themselves? --  ajn (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Would the class of non-Welsh people be a member of the class of Welsh people who are not Welsh themselves? Milt 19:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

My objection to omitting him from the Welsh categories is that you are all being very fundamentalist. Do you not realise that many, many people have two or more national identities. for example many people are English, British and European; or Corsican and French; or Turkish and German. Why must Russell only be classified under the one term "British"? As has been pointed out, he did not even describe himself as "British", but as English. They are not the same thing you know. And I would have absolutely no objections if Bahamians or Spaniards were to also put Sean Connery in their subcategories, just as long as they did not try to remove him from the perfectly legitimate Scottish categories. Stop being so anal. You are acting like the worst types of bureaucratic jobs-worths.--Mais oui! 19:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I thought "British" was meant to encompass "English", "Scottish", "Welsh", "Northern Irish" (and possibly "Cornish"). Thus you wouldn't say Connery was both British and Scottish. Milt 19:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Of course you could! I doubt very much whether he would ever describe himself as British, but other people might. No, British does NOT encompass English, Scottish; Welsh, or Cornish (and definitely not Northern Irish). For many millions of citizens of the UK, British is a descriptor that does not apply to them: a recent survey, reported by The Scotsman newspaper — 7 August 2005, found that "... only 27% of Scots said they were British, 35% of Welsh people and 48% of English." Ie. a minority of UK citizens feel that the adjective "British" applies to them. Bertrand Russell didn't. He used the term "English" for a reason, unless you think that he was typically careless in his terminology.--Mais oui! 20:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I suspect Connery wouldn't say he was Bahamian or Spanish, either. The crucial point is self-identification. Connery is Scottish, despite not living there. Tony Blair (born in Scotland and partially educated there) is, as far as he is concerned, English rather than Scottish. Russell was, as far as he was concerned, British or English (he used both words interchangeably - Mais oui!, have you actually read any of his autobiographical or other writings?). I'd be more sympathetic to this attempt to categorise Russell as Welsh if there was any evidence put forward to suggest that he ever described himself as being Welsh. It's far more honest to say he was British, and leave it at that. --  ajn (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter much what Connery thinks. Yes, he would say Scottish, but if other people ALSO (note the inclusiveness) want to put him in the British, Bahamian or Spanish, or American categories, they are all, at least partly, true also. I seek inclusivity. Other people are desperately trying to exclude Russell from a perfectly legitimate category: he was born in Wales for heaven's sake. That alone would qualify him under any reasonable approach.--Mais oui! 21:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It seems to me that if someone is born in a country then they may be assumed to be of that nationality by default, at least unless there is good reason for thinking otherwise. Rls 12:55, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it so much simpler, if that's all that nationality means, to say where and of whom a person was born? The opening of the article proper conveys the facts: "Bertrand Russell was born on 18 May 1872 at Trellech, Monmouthshire, Wales, into an aristocratic English family." Oops. I see that this begs the question. The family is said to be English. Is that supposed to convey anything more than "born in England"? I think so. Anyway, whether Russell was a Welsh mathematician is only a category dispute, and it doesn't affect the entry for him. I'm sure we haven't seen the last of unusual categories loosely applied to him. I do wonder, however, whether Misplaced Pages has any standards for the application of nationality. Milt 13:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

All this discussion of Russell's "Welshness" has reminded me that he loathed most patriotism and abominated nationalism and from at least his Free Trade days was an Internationalist. I have tried but failed to include him in the category of World citizen. There is actually an article with that title and Russell is in the list. Perhaps someone more Wiki-adept than I would make the category. I've left it in need of repair. It seems that a category and an "entry" can have identical titles, as is the case with "Welsh mathematicians". In the entry of that title Russell's descent has been revised from Welsh to English. Milt 00:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Would those helpful editors who consider Russell Welsh say the same thing about Edward II of England, who was also born in a family home in Wales? Septentrionalis 03:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Russell said he was English; his family at least since the 16th century thought of itself as English; all major philosophy and mathematics texts, anthologies, biographies, and encyclopedia entries refer to him as having been English; no other reputable or authoratative source has ever referred to him as Welsh; therefore, I maintain that he is English. I suspect there is an attempt to burnish the contributions of Wales at the expense of accuracy. Yes, he was born and he died there; but geography, alone, does not make nationality, as the several examples given by others have shown. icut4u 03:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Geography certainly does play a large part in nationality, and it has hardly been "shown" otherwise by the opinion of a few other Wikipedians. By default, one's nationality is where one is born; if Wales was a sovereign country, Russell would have had Welsh citizenship. I suspect the fact that he was generally referred to as English was more to do with the relatively common practice of using "English" as a synonym of "British" during (and prior to) the first half of the 20th Century. Rls 17:32, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Geography and birthplace do not determine nationality on their own. What we have here is a small number of people who are ignorant of Russell's own writing who say he was Welsh, and people who have actually read Russell's autobiography, Monk's biography, and at least some of the many writings on culture and politics that Russell produced throughout his life. The latter group say there is no evidence that he ever thought of himself as being Welsh, or was ever described by others as being Welsh (indeed, his autobiography starts with his arrival in London, that being his earliest memory). He was an English aristocrat, and extraordinarily proud of that. --  ajn (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Nationality is based on three main aspects: place of birth, blood, and naturalisation. Place of birth alone should be enough to make a case for nationality -- Russell would for example have been qualified to play rugby or football for Wales under current rules (even if that does conjure up a slightly bizarre image :). He was unquestionably of English descent, but he chose to spend extended periods of his life living in Wales, so the third point is under dispute. In any case, the categories are not formally defined. My view is that being born in a country qualifies someone for categorisation under that category; it is not necessarily an absolute statement of nationality. By the way, I find your assumptions of my state of ignorance slightly insulting. Rls 18:06, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Consider also the purpose of categories. A researcher making an investigation into Welsh scientists would find it of interest that Russell was born, died, and spent some time in Wales. Categories are not mutually exclusive and it is my view that the article should be included in the relevant Welsh and English categories. Rls

A researcher investigating any nationality of scientist shouldn't find Russell - do you actually know anything about him? If you're going to make a category for people who retired to Wales, fine - but Russell was not educated in Wales, and did no philosophical or mathematical work during the years he lived there. --  ajn (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

But he was born in Wales, which is one of the important factors in considering their nationality. The place where someone was educated plays entirely no part in their nationality in my opinion. 144.124.16.28 19:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, quotes from Autobiography of Bertrand Russell: "I blush all over to be English sometimes". , p.312. "I am inclined to think that one of the solid advantages of the English temperament is that we..." p.492; "In the East, people are passionately pro-English; we are treated with extra kindness in shops as soon as people notice our accent." p.494; "This made me very happy for, though I dare say it would surprise many Englishmen and most of the English Establishment to hear it, I am passionately English, and I treasure an honour bestowed on me by the Head of my country" p516. --Dannyno 13:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Categories

Has anyone searched Misplaced Pages for entries that mention Bertrand Russell in a list, as in World citizen? Such a source might turn up more categorizations of him. Milt 00:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Welsh AND English: the case for reasonableness in opposition to fundamentalism

I just cannot understand why so many people are being such fundamentalists on this issue. Has it never crossed your minds that people can be from more than one country or place? You have a very purist, extremist view of human identity. Real life is much, much more complicated. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. You should not call a poll every time you read something you disagree with. Russell was, at least partly, from Wales. He was also English, so I have added him to the relevant Category:English people categories, plus to the absolutely indisputable, biographically factual category Category:Natives of Monmouthshire.--Mais oui! 08:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages is not a democracy" does not mean "anyone can put anything they like into an article, even if everyone else disagrees with them". Go and actually read our policies before lecturing people on how Misplaced Pages works. Proteus (Talk) 09:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Russell should be in both English, and Welsh people categories. I consider this effort to define Russell by his English ethnicity alone to be a very sinister development. It reflects very, very poorly on the people calling for categorisation by racial purity. I concede that I am not going to win what you have chosen to make an editing war, as long as nobody tries to remove him from Natives of Monmouthshire out of sheer spite. This is a very sad day for the more cosmopolitan members of the Misplaced Pages community. Ethnic categorisation, if applied throughout Misplaced Pages, would completely destroy the entire project. Shame on you! How very, very un-Russellian of you. I hope that you appreciate the profound irony of your position.--Mais oui! 09:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

It is unnecessary to resort to name calling and personalizing the matter as you have done in this last squib. No reference has been made to race, here, only to nationality; there is no such thing as "racial purity," and no one has said so on this page. Russell was concerned with precision, so I am not sure what is un-Russellian about the position that he was English. Yes, some people do claim dual nationality, as you said earlier; however, Russell, to my knowledge, and I have read a good part of his writings and his letters, never claimed this. Indeed, he often said he was English. No one who is a widely accepted authority on Russell has ever claimed that he was anything other than English, either. No one in his family has claimed this. It is perfectly legitimate to reference Wales as an important place in his life (as was America, in a different way); it is not correct to refer to him as Welsh, however. icut4u 15:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The question of nationality is inherently unprecise. What nationality Russell claimed is certainly important, but what his family claim isn't. Self-determination is enough to include someone in a category, but not to exclude them from another (where they are not mutually exclusive) in my opinion. I agree Mais Oui's personal comments are unhelpful. 144.124.16.28 19:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The Amberley Papers has interesting information on Bertrand Russell's immediate ancestors (who aren't in Misplaced Pages) and his siblings. His father was born in England. His mother was born in England. His brother was born in England. His sister was born in England. Then they all moved over the Monmouth border to Trelleck a year or two before Bertrand was born, and he was moved back by age 3. What purpose could be served by deeming him Welsh because of this border crossing? What Welsh characteristics could he have gained as an infant? Milt 18:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "Monmouth" border. The nationalities of his siblings are irrelevant. He was born in Wales, and that is usually enough to consider someone as being of that nationality, though given his English descent, self-description, and longer period of living there he should certainly be considered English as well. 144.124.16.28 19:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

It is not by any stetch of the imagination "usually enough to consider someone as being of that nationality". Two of my cousins were born in South Africa, but if you suggested they were South African they'd probably just laught at you. My brother's girlfriend was born in Hong Kong, but if you suggested she was Chinese she'd probably think you were insane. Proteus (Talk) 23:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

(The post you replied to was by me; Misplaced Pages was behaving strangely yesterday). This is an appeal to ridicule. Your cousins might have a case for South African citizenship if their families were living in South Africa rather than being on a temporary visa or whatever. I doubt your brother's girlfriend could consider herself Chinese anyway unless she is very young because Hong Kong only became a Chinese territory a few years ago. In any case, your acquaintances' views on nationality are irrelevant. Rls 23:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't suppose it will do any good in dispelling this to point out that it is debateable whether Monmouth was part of Wales in 1872? Septentrionalis 22:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Not really, because a) Russell wasn't born in Monmouth and b) assuming you mean Monmouthshire, it has always been considered part of Wales except in the case of a few legal technicalities. Rls 23:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

"Self-description" being enough to include, but not sufficient to exclude, I should like to argue Russell was an American. After all, his wives Alys and Edith were both American. He had at least one American lover. He spent a good deal of time in America. He occasionally became involved in American political affairs. His daughter Kate married an American and, I think, she might still live in America. He has American grandchildren. Some Americans, myself included, believe him to be the greatest philosopher of the 20th century. I should like to claim him as a fellow American, and think I could rouse others in support of this. He wrote more philosophy in America than he did in Wales. He was in America when it was announced he would win the Nobel Prize. Thus, I think we should include him among American philosophers and mathematicians. Of course, this is not a good argument: he was English. icut4u 23:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Argument by assertion is a logical fallacy. It's ironic how many fallacies have been used in this discussion considering the subject of the article. Had Russell been born in America then I think a case could certainly be made for categorising him as an American philosopher (etc.) in addition to the English categories. However, this is now getting more than a bit silly so I have to bow to the consensus. Rls 23:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

And your "argument" mischaracterizes mine, which I said quite clearly was a poor one, but every bit as good as ones mounted in favor of calling him Welsh, which, again, is to say it is poor. A bit of Russell and his student, Wittgenstein, tells us that convention has a great deal to do with language and meaning, and this includes the terms and meanings often associated with nationality. The convention among philosophers, biographers, intellecutal historians, people associated with Russell, notably his family, and, most importantly, Russell himself is to refer to him as English. No one of this group with whom I am familiar, or who has been cited here, refers to him as being Welsh. The contrary, however, is true. No reputable encyclopedia, including the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, calls him anything other than English, though most texts certainly refer to the fact that he was born in Wales. It strikes me as a bit of hubris to suppose that Misplaced Pages ought to be the first to set everyone straight on this. icut4u 23:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I was referring to your final sentence, "he was English", which did not follow from the rest of your argument, but which was mere assertion. I did not in any way mischaracterize your argument, but pointed out that it was incomplete -- had Russell been born in America, I said a case could indeed be made that he was (partly) American. Further, you are attacking a straw man by trying to argue that he was English; my argument was not that he was not English, but that he should be dual-categorised under the Welsh categories for the reasons I have already put forward. Anyway, I have already conceded the discussion on grounds of triviality. Rls 00:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I had already argued for that point, and I have had to repeat myself. It is a matter of convention. Misplaced Pages proscribes against original research, and the proposition that Russell is Welsh is, as far as I can observe, original research. I should be interested in any reputable sourcing that suggests he is Welsh, in which case a dual categorization would be quite acceptable; however, there is considerable body of citable evidence for the contrary point of view, which is that he is thoroughly English. I myself don't think it is trivial, but I do agree, it is no longer constructive, so I shall say no more on this. Best icut4u 00:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

A cursory Google search produces http://www.100welshheroes.com/en/biography/bertrandrussell -- which seems respectable, as it is sponsored by the Welsh Assembly and is based at the National Library of Wales. Of course it could be reasonably argued that it is biased, but I think it qualifies as respectable. There are many other similar claims on the web, so I don't think the "original research" comment is fair. Rls 01:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The only claim here is that of birthplace: While I am perfectly willing to rejoice that Gwent has been returned to Wales (even if that doesn't help settle this), ir had not been returned in 1872. I quote from the 1911 Britannica: "Monmouthshire is a wewstern border county of England, bounded E. by Gloucestershire...W. and S.W by Glamorganshire (Wales)." Enough of this; national victories are not retroactive. Septentrionalis 02:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

"national victories are not retroactive". Very good! Try telling that to the people who regularly categorise pre-1707 Englishmen and Scots as "British" (sic). William Shakespeare, Isaac Newton, John Donne, John Napier etc were never "British", yet there they are in the British section of Misplaced Pages. Of course the very worst offender in that regard is the British Nationalist Broadcasting Corporation, who seem to be hell-bent on pretending that England, Scotland and Wales do not exist. We're all the "Yookay" now: Hurrah for conformity, homogeneity and blandness!--Mais oui! 11:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The 1911 Britannica is incorrect in this case. Monmouthshire has always been considered part of Wales in popular usage, and almost always in legal terms. If the traditional county was considered English, that would have made places such as Newport, Caerleon, Abergavenny, Abercarn, Abertillery etc. English. Rls 14:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Monmouthshire has always been considered part of Wales by some people, and always been considered part of England by others! People in the latter category DO think Newport, Caerleon, Abergavenny, Abercarn, Abertillery etc. are English! Owain 11:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

History of Western Philosophy

If we can drag ourselves away from all this fascinating discussion of nationality, I've made a start at replacing the previous eccentric article on the History of Western Philosophy. It's an important book (Russell's most widely-read book, secured his financial position), and the entry needs some detail, especially about the problems with it. --  ajn (talk) 09:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Birth year

Someone insists on making a foolish revision to Russell's birth year. There is no evidence that he was born in 1875! Why does this contributor persist?

For the past several hours, everyone who has visited the entry has been misinformed as to Bertrand Russell's birth year. Then there is the ripple effect: several spans of years have been recalculated and revised. Maybe a separate entry should be written for the Russell who was born in 1872. How, in general, does Misplaced Pages recover from a persistent source of damage? Milt 00:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms

I discovered that great man on wikipedia and I'm getting books by him as soon as possible. Still, I do not understand that a man who's been criticized so much not only doesn't have a Criticism of Bertrand Russell page, but doesn't even have a criticism section in his article. Plus, those LaRouche people seem pretty ardent on putting things in, and I don't understand why the name of the guy isn't even mentionned on the page. Is it a very minor movement that simply has a few very active supporters on wikipedia? Is he one among many? (in the latter case, a criticism page should exist, or at least a section on his ennemies). I think that the quote "from an ennemy" that was reverted several times, was a simple, unobstrusive way of putting a mention of this movement in, so why the hostility to the slightest mention? Once again, from what I read here, I admire this man much, but for the sake of NPOV I think criticisms shouldn't be forgotten or diluted across the article. But I might be wrong: obviously the editors here must know the subject much better than me. Jules LT 07:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Basically: Lyndon LaRouche is a nut with a lot of very active supporters who seek to put his warped perspective into Misplaced Pages. They have been so active in this that the arbitration committee ruled that "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Misplaced Pages article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles." and "Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed not to add references to Lyndon directly to articles except where they are highly relevant, and not to engage in activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Lyndon LaRouche." (See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche). Russell is one of the supreme villains in LaRouche's oddball worldview, and this article has been a target of the movement recently.

Having said that, there is room for criticism - there's a quote from Rhees's recollections of Ludwig Wittgenstein already in the article, and other mentions of the falling-out of LW and BR (although they became bitter philosophical opponents, LW apparently still treated Russell with respect). Ray Monk, who has written biographies of both men and is himself a philosopher, famously grew to detest Russell by the time he'd finished his second volume. But rather than stick in huge chunks of criticism from a man who thinks Queen Elizabeth II controls the international cocaine trade, criticism to be included needs to be sourced, proportionate, and included within the context of the article (e.g. the "Influence on philosophy" section). --  ajn (talk) 08:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I agree: inflating the importance of this guy is clearly out of place here and in most articles that don't relate directly to him. I would still expect a criticism section in an article on such a controversial person as Russell, be it only a list summing up the main criticisms and pointing to the sections where you can find something more detailed. Jules LT 15:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The question is, what aspect of Russell is being criticised? If it's criticism of his epistemology, or his mathematical work, or his political campaigning, then the criticism needs to go into the sections already there (e.g. the mention of Goedel at the end of the "Logic and mathematics" section, Strawson in the "Philosophy of language" section, or most of the "Philosophy of science" section). The idea of Misplaced Pages:NPOV is not to have a hagiography and a separate "Why Russell was a Very Bad Man" section, it's to have a neutral article reflecting what he believed and how others (others with some credibility) reacted to him and his views. --  ajn (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Theory of Types

Did the Theory of Types really influence computer science and IT? I know very well what a type is in the context of computer languages, but it doesn't seem to me to have much connection with Russell's Theory of Types, apart from the name. --  ajn (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Agree. However I think Russell did have an influence on computer science simply because he had an influence of virtually every area of mathematics. Russell's paradox, for example, is implemented in typeless lambda calculus.

Frege on empty descriptions

I have revised the following attempted description of Frege's views, because it does not in fact describe Frege's views:

Frege seemed to think we could dismiss as nonsense any proposition whose words apparently referred to objects that didn't exist.

I don't know to whom he "seemed" to think this; certainly not to himself (since in Über Sinn und Bedeutung he clearly states that "Is it possible that a sentence as a whole has only a sense, but no Bedeutung? At any rate, one might expect that such sentences occur, just as there are parts of sentences having sense but no Bedeutung. And sentences which contain proper names without Bedeutung will be of this kind. The sentence 'Odysseus was set ashore at Ithaca while sound asleep' obviously has a sense. But since it is doubful whether the name 'Odysseus', occurring therein, has a Bedeutung, it is also doubtful whether the whole sentence does." Since Frege holds that the Bedeutung of a sentence is its truth-value, this means that if all the constituents of a well-formed sentence have a sense but at least one of them has no Bedeutung, the sentence is not nonsense; rather it expresses a thought (has sense) but is neither true nor false of the world (has no Bedeutung).

Nor did it seem to Russell that this was Frege's view. In "On Denoting," what he says is that you might think that Frege's view makes sentences such as "The present King of France is bald" senseless, but the actual view he attributes to Frege is one on which empty denoting phrases are assigned ad hoc technical denotations (e.g. the null-class for "the present King of France" and the set of all Mr. Jones's sons for "the son of Mr. Jones," if Jones has ten strapping young boys). This is a failure, on Russell's part, to appreciate the full subtlety of Frege's view, but he certainly does not attribute to Frege the view that it is said Frege "seems" to hold, either.

Since this is neither Frege's actual view nor the view which Russell attributed to Frege in "On Denoting," I think the sentence (and the sentences following it which describe an alleged problem for Frege's view) well deserves being corrected to reflect Frege's actual view.

—Radgeek 05:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Length of page

The page as it is now is way too long (60+k). Recommended article size is at most half. This is just a recommendation, but it's good advice for just Russell's main page. I think this can be achieved in large part by condensing sections on Russell's philosophical work and Russell's activism, both of which can be moved in full to other pages.

--FranksValli 02:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Major Ideas

Apart from logical atomism, do you know of any idea original to Russell to put in the template-philosopher? I could come up with none, but then again I only discovered Russell a month ago or so and I haven't read that much from him (but I'm working on it). Jules LT 14:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Eugenics quotes

I have been searching for the sentence which says that black people are inferior to white and also the one which says that women are inferior to men in Marriage and Morals but I haven't found them. Could someone write which page this comes from?

===As mentioned with the quote, Russell altered the original passage.=== You'll find it in Chap. 18, "Eugenics", 2/3 of the way in, in the paragraph starting "In extreme cases". In the Bantam paperback edition first published in 1959, the passage is on p. 180. There is no passage in _Marriage and Morals_ that states that women are inferior to men. I'd venture to say that there no such passage in Russell's entire corpus. There is a passage in MM in which he refers to the "stupidity" of women. It goes with Russell's not too unusual view that the education afforded women has been stunted, and deliberately so. You can see this in the ironic passage about reestablishing the old morality: "The first essential is that the education of girls should be such as to make them stupid and superstitious and ignorant; this requisite is already fulfilled in the schools over which the churches have any control." (Near the end of "The Liberation of Women" chapter; Bantam, p. 61) Clearly, Russell is drawing the conclusion about women's intelligence that is warranted by the belief that their education has been substandard. Those who hold that women are not stupid in Russell's sense must also hold that their education has been the equal of men's!

This article needs more meat

{{{1}}}--Piedras grandes 03:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Undated GA templates
• Good articles without topic parameter
• Misplaced Pages featured article candidates (contested)