Russell and Reference Papers on the History of Western Philosophy

Bertrand Russell's philosophy is profound, and many papers have made a profound description of the relationship between Russell's philosophy and western philosophy. The following is the relevant information of Russell's papers on the history of western philosophy, which I carefully arranged, hoping to help you!

Russell and the History of Western Philosophy (I)

I think therefore I am? It should be regarded as the first principle of philosophy. Generally speaking, most philosophers' arguments have limitations. Bertrand Russell's thoughts are indeed profound.

Humans should eventually move towards unity, and the whole world will eventually become a whole. Perhaps for geographical reasons, human beings once lived in different parts of the world. Now, mankind has just begun to get together again, although there will be a lot of hardships and tears ... looking forward to it. ...

The truth should be like this: make bold assumptions and be careful to verify, because human beings are already exploring.

The "universe" composed of "time" and "space" is not infinite. All three have boundaries. "Everything is bounded, and the truth is infinite?" .

The contradiction between infinity and infinitesimal and existence itself, or there is no infinity and infinitesimal in reality (to be proved).

"God" does not exist. Or "God" is nature. The "God" in their hearts can be understood in this way. "God" is a kind of sustenance and spiritual comfort for human beings who can't find a suitable explanation for themselves and all things. In other words, "God" is the pursuit of all philosophers.

Soul, emotion, body.

Emotion: Everyone's emotional response is almost the same, and people's structural framework is the same, but the details are different.

Soul: a part of the soul can be entrusted, such as words, sounds, pictures and monuments. ....

Body: the activity foundation of soul and emotion.

"predetermined harmony-harmony" may be true.

We may just see the tools we use to explain ourselves naturally. We are all victims of natural reactions. Everything is just a natural reaction, and everything has its own rules to follow.

This planet, this world, this world, this land. Behind the dazzling surface is the course of blood and tears that human beings have to endure. At all costs, human beings turn the most valuable things they can determine into things that can be felt by sight and hearing. Those whines, moans, wars, suspicions and all the distress, sadness, bitterness and tears caused by them are left in their respective memories, which may not exist in every life.

When we see the word philosophy, the first reaction in our minds is boredom, which is related to the exam-oriented education we have received, the concepts we can't remember, the multiple-choice questions we can't completely choose, and the correctness of what to explain. In fact, the results of this study only let us remember the eight-part essay characteristics of several concepts and outlines, which is really not helpful to the cultivation of our philosophical temperament and the formation of philosophical thinking. My understanding of philosophical temperament and thinking refers to rationality, what is rationality, and the pursuit of justice, which is justice.

To understand philosophy, we must first understand the meaning of the word philosophy. What is philosophy? Russell gave a vague and clear definition. Philosophy is something between theology and science. Russell then gave the concept of science, which refers to all exact knowledge (we know that one of the characteristics of science is repeatability), while theology is a dogma beyond exact knowledge. Is Russell here? That's true. 、? Dogma? These words are underlined. Between theology and science, there is a no-man's land attacked on both sides, and this no-man's land is philosophy. Personally, I think Russell's division is very similar to China's chessboard. Science is the boundary of the Han Dynasty, and theology is the Chu River.

Philosophy is the gap in the middle. Of course, if your thinking is dynamic, you should have thought of it. China's Taiji diagram of Yin and Yang is the most vivid expression of Russell's division. White fish is science, black fish is theology, and the seemingly interlinked part between white fish and black fish is philosophy. White fish's eyes are black, which means that there are certain ingredients in science? Theology? The black fish's eyes are white, indicating that theology may have some elements? Science? This metaphor may not be appropriate to explain Russell's division, but personally, it helps to abandon China's thinking of either/or.

Russell went on to say that philosophy, like science, is appeal to reason rather than authority, whether it is traditional authority or enlightened authority. The traditional authority here refers to the power of the state machine, and the authority of revelation refers to the dogma in theology, the will of God and so on. Since philosophy is as rational as science, where is the necessity of philosophy? Russell believes that science can't answer all the questions that the speculative mind is interested in, and the confident answers of theologians are not as convincing as in the past centuries. Russell listed many questions that interested the speculative mind. Personally, it is far less intuitive than these three questions: Who am I? 、? Where am I from and where am I going? Of course, Russell's problem is at a higher level. There are no answers to these three questions in the laboratory. As mentioned above, theologians' answers have lost their luster. And philosophy just delves into this kind of business. Some people may ask, what is evolution? Personally, evolution is a point on the dark circles of whitefish. As I mentioned above, one of the characteristics of science is repeatability. So far, carbohydrates can't synthesize spirituality, which is simply cells, that is to say, the source of evolution has not been found.

Why should we waste time on such a boring question? Russell thinks that one is historical responsibility, and the other is the sense of loneliness in the universe. There are hundreds of millions of stars in the universe, and we humans are just small reptiles on the humble planet. Are we helpless or doomed? Facing the vast starry sky, lonely errol said: Uncertainty is painful in the face of obvious hopes and fears; But if we want to live in a fairy tale without comfort, we must put up with this uncertainty. ? Russell thinks it is useless to forget the question, and claims that we have found a definite answer. If we forget how much we can't know, we will be insensitive to many important things. Theological dogmatism, saying that we are ignorant but have knowledge, will produce a sense of arrogance towards the universe. Personally, I think the arrogance of atheism is ignorance, and the arrogance of theologians is misunderstanding.

Let's go back to the beginning of Russell's introduction and talk about the characteristics of philosophy. Russell said,? Philosophy? Outlook on life and world outlook are the products of two factors: one is traditional religion and ethics, and the other is what can be called? Science? That kind of research, in the broadest sense of the word science. As for the proportion of these two factors in the philosopher system, every philosopher is very different; However, only when they coexist to some extent can they form the characteristics of philosophy. Coexistence is a problem, but it is also a fact. Where your mind goes is beyond the command of your mouth. Only your mind can really know. Branding, branding is still an inevitable branding problem.

Russell and the History of Western Philosophy (Ⅱ)

To understand the culture of a region, we must first understand their philosophy and history. Zhao Dunhua's A Brief History of Western Philosophy is not only a textbook to study the history of western philosophy, but also makes it as written in the Introduction. A series of noble souls is an exhibition of many rational heroes? After reading this book, you will probably understand the philosophical thoughts that have dominated the West, especially Europe, for thousands of years, and understand how different their philosophy and perspectives on the world are from ours.

Science: all accurate knowledge; Theology: everything involves dogma beyond precise knowledge. Philosophy: between the two, including human thinking about things whose exact knowledge is uncertain, appealing to human reason rather than authority. From the secular spirit of Greek philosophy to the development of Hegel's philosophy, this book describes the continuous development of rational thinking and philosophical thinking in the west in a comprehensive and detailed way, in which numerous quotations and abstract arguments slow down the reading speed of this book. In the history of thousands of years, we can find clear comments on almost any important philosophical point of view in this book. In the book, the author's comments on these philosophical views are clear and wise, showing a profound and subtle thought of an academic, which is impressive. For example, the author makes a detailed and profound analysis of Plato's doubt about leisure producing wisdom. Firstly, compare Plato's thought with modern thought, and deduce the obvious problems of Plato's thought; Then make a series of assumptions, assuming that Plato's thoughts or assumptions are true. After analysis and reasoning, the author finally draws a logical conclusion: find out a group? Smart? People come and entrust the government to them, which is still an unsolved problem. This is the fundamental reason why we should support democracy. Russell said: Philosophy is appeal to reason, not authority. Philosophy teaches reason and encourages people to study and seek knowledge freely. Facing the infinity of space, the eternity of the universe, and the nothingness of time and space migration, we are dust in a turbulent stream, and we don't know what the meaning of existence is. But even if they don't know it, many people can still live happily, safely and contentedly. But some people are not satisfied. Just as we are infinitely curious about various natural phenomena, we have a strong thirst for knowledge about the relationship between our limited self and the infinite universe. Truth is rare, and philosophical propositions can never be answered, but we can't stand the stagnation of not exploring, so we make unremitting efforts to seek and wander towards the light without source in the boundless forest.

Reading a good book, our purpose is not limited to understanding the contents and plots introduced in the book, but to absorb the positive thoughts, correct outlook on life and values expressed by the author, and to learn the author's methods and abilities to analyze and solve problems. We should know how to learn, be good at learning, and at least improve our ability to think and deal with problems ideologically during reading.

Feeling: In the course of this semester, with the progress and busyness of the course, I gradually came into contact with the core knowledge of college ideological and political education, and my enthusiasm and pressure for learning increased. Among them, the learning team plays an important role in my study and life. In a threesome, we must learn from each other. In a team, we can not only learn by ourselves, improve theoretical study, but also learn the study habits, fields and contents of team members, improve each other and maximize learning efficiency. During the study of the study group this semester, we conducted four exercises of CET-4 and CET-6 * * *, which on the one hand made the members of the study group more United and deepened their study, on the other hand, I didn't forget to learn English in the busy study task, which helped to improve my ability in an all-round way. If all great works are born in loneliness, then all great ideas are born in communication and integration, and the learning team is such an opportunity and platform.

Russell and the History of Western Philosophy (Ⅲ)

Russell: History of Western Philosophy

Once upon a time, there was an old man in England. His ancestors were already high-ranking officials in the Victorian era, and his family was rich and had a title. By the time his parents died young, he became the third generation Lord of the family at the age of 4 with tears in his face, and grew up under the knees of his strict and withdrawn grandmother. Don't do evil with others, okay? It was the old lady who gave him laws and proverbs. His enlightenment education began in his grandfather's study, and his tutor accompanied him until he was 17 years old. Mathematics became the only pleasure in his loneliness, because? Mathematics can be doubted, and mathematics has no ethical content? . He grew up unhappy.

1900 was admitted to Trinity College of Cambridge University to study mathematics and philosophy. At the age of 3/kloc-0, he published Principles of Mathematics, and at the age of 40, he completed philosophical problems. These two books established his lofty position in the basic research field of mathematics and analytical philosophy. Most of the fruits of meditation on his tree bear fruit before the age of 50. At the age of 73, on the basis of years of exile and lectures, he compiled and published his representative work "History of Western Philosophy", and soon won the Nobel Prize in Literature. Is this old man with a big pipe in his mouth Bertrand? Russell.

Russell's wisdom and harmony have always been praised. His History of Western Philosophy is a best seller in elegant research. Be thoughtful and open-minded; Background and objectivity; Have opinions and originality; Logic and literariness. Like reading wonderful historical stories, let's take a look at the trajectory and past of philosophers for more than 2,000 years. Russell lived to be 98 years old, and this book has been written until Dewey in the early 20th century. But we still regret that he didn't live long enough. Some people, we hope they will live forever, live side by side with philosophy forever, be a witness, and keep writing history for us until the end of philosophy and the dusk of the world. In this book, sentences like the following abound:

Jealousy is the foundation of democracy. ?

Lice is called the pearl of God, and it is covered with lice, which is an essential feature of saints. ?

He gets happiness not from his own property, but from other people's property. ?

What made her an enthusiastic Democrat was her experience of visiting an aristocratic villa by chance and being taken to a servant's room. ?

The fate of idealists seems to be that what they have gained through struggle has destroyed their ideals. ?

In the literary ancestral hall of the Nobel family, the only exception to winning the prize for historical works is Churchill, the great man, and only Bergson and Russell won the prize for philosophical works. What was Russell's reason for winning the prize? All kinds of important works, constantly pursuing humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought? . In addition to his titles as a philosopher, mathematician, logician and historian, Russell is also a rare essayist, only from the wisdom of his narrative style and the originality and humor of his words. He completed a wonderful transformation from profound academic problems to reading enjoyment for ordinary readers.

People who write books have many preferences, even if everyone is like Russell. He emphasized Locke and Hume in empirical philosophy, and also praised Socrates and Spinoza. And abstract Kant and Hegel are not derogatory. Everyone has his own background and tradition. As time goes on, I like positivism more and more. I used to think that the former was vulgar and shallow, and admired Kant all the way, hanging in the air like a delicate attic, which seemed mysterious and ethereal. Actually, it may not be like this. Just as I loved French literature when I was young, I can understand English literature better now. Is it process or compromise? Common sense, not weirdness, is starting to suit me.