Ray Monk: "Wittgenstein in Cambridge"

[@capitanmission]

Great talk! W makes me think!

[@capitanmission]

Whats the title of the composition at 40´?

[@lesliecunliffe4450]

It is one of Bach's cello solos. He composed several. If you search Bach's cello solos on KZbin and listen to them you can identify this specific one.

[@ajones747]

wtf cello playing???

[@jeremybray9586]

He's not playing it. He's sawing it in half.

[@DexterHaven]

He doesn't look like a monk.

[@DexterHaven]

His mentor, Russell, had an enormous capacity for bad judgment and failed hunches: 1. He was wrong when he led others to think math (a) needed a foundation in logic and (b) could be founded completely there. 2. His philosophy of pacifism and appeasement during the rise of Hitler in the '30s did not help England prepare for WW2 one bit. He was no Churchill. Finally, when a six-year old knew that bloody combat was the way to save England from the Nazi bombs, Russell finally got some common sense and dismissed pacifism as a wise response to Hitler. 3. Russell had the dumb hunch that the way to fight the USSR was through appeasement and disarmament, unilateral if necessary. He would have had us all overrun. He was no Ronald Reagan. Russell posed as a wise man on the strength of his studies in logic and the humanities, but when it cam time for leading people in the right direction with sound insight, he was a flop, a false guide.

[@Mekchanoid]

I don't think this is a very relevant post but anyway: 1. He was by no means the only one, it was a dominant current in maths and logic at the time. 2. Probably to say that the British ruling class was, on the whole, taken by surprise by Hitler's invasion of Poland. The key military technologies like radar, rolling bombs etc. and strategies like Ultra were all developed during WWII. 3. Ronald Reagan had no idea that the Soviet Union was going to collapse when it did, and arguably did nothing to promote that collapse. Russell didn't pose as anything. He was an influential public thinker thanks to his effort to make the moral issues of the day accessible. He did not flounce around spurting random bits of Latin while holding a paltry 2:2. An ability to present alternative arguments with clarity and insight is essential in a democratic society.

[@DexterHaven]

@@Mekchanoid Reagan had good intelligence on Russia in the '80s; their economy was weakening while their military ambitions rose. It was now or never. Reagan was tough on Russia, invaded Grenada, bombed Libya, supported Thatcher in the Falklands. Reagan ramped up the arms race on the strength of his tax cuts of '86, which grew our economy and raised tax revenues to new highs; and he challenged Gorbachev and the Soviets, "Tear down this wall." Which they did....

[@VidaBlue317]

@@Mekchanoid Russell's mistakes in math and logic still pushed the subject forward (via Godel?). And Russell was also the one to point out Frege's fatal flaw in set theory. As for his politics, I don't know.

[@thomdotexe]

he had a habit of being a contain with the subjects he wasn't massively engaged in sure but you entirely mischaracterize his philosophy of mathematics and logic. next time start and end with his politics and social awareness, that's where he lacked i agree. to try and tie his philosophy of maths and logic into all that is just strange, you're right he's not Churchill lmao he was just an academic, and what do you know his skills weren't in political 'directing' or fighting Hitler, but in academics, logic and maths. He really did not 'pose as a wise man' he was just an academic, and offered some social and political insight to topics he really wasn't that engaged in, should be regarded in the same way you would with a college professor, he was speaking to his students, not as a 'director' but as an educator. But either way very strange mode of attacking a philosophical position here, maths and logic are very far detached from the actual things you accuse Russel of doing

[@DexterHaven]

You get the dummy-award for that comment for not supporting your charges, stupid. You said: "but you entirely mischaracterize his philosophy of mathematics and logic." How do you know that? Which part of his philosophy, you fraud? Back up your charges already. @@thomdotexe

[@justriley9157]

what a sad and boring lecture