Skip to main content

Russell and Moore in 1922

Bertrand Russell transparent bg.png

How old was Bertrand Russell in 1922? Not ALL that old, surely, because he had a lot of life left in him.

The reason I ask (no reason to rush and look it up yourself, dear reader, I will do that for you shortly) is that Russell delivered a lecture in March 1922 that began with a rather supercilious reference to his age.

The lecture, with the title, "Is there an Absolute Good?," answers the title question with a resounding "no." Furthermore, the "no" is true even if one interprets "absolute" so that it means something rather less demanding that it sounds. Russell meant to say that  there is no objective good.

Important subject, but not why I'm writing this post. It is inspired by the opening of the lecture, which is this:

 When the generation to which I belong were young, Moore persuaded us all that there is an absolute good. Most of us drew the inference that we were absolutely good, but this is not an essential part of Moore's position, though it is one of its most attractive parts.

So, how old was that generation, how old was Russell himself, in March 1922?


Answer: he was born in May 1872. So he was 49 when he gave this lecture, two months short of 50. 


Moore himself was a little younger than Russell -- Moore was born in November 1873. 


So although the phrasing brought me up short (along with the weren't-we-all-terribly-full-of-ourselves back then? bit), it was fair. Moore had come out with PRINCIPIA ETHICA in 1903. Assuming that was mid-year (just for fun), Russell was then 31 and Moore was just 29. Both men underwent a good deal of intellectual development in the 19 years between that book and the lecture in question. And in between there they saw a generation younger than themselves sent off to war across the channel and killed en masse. 


The jolt came simply because Russell lived until 1970, long enough so that in thinking about his life I personally tend to think of him as an old man (as one thinks of Tolstoy on the train). Thus, I telescope together his earlier decades in a way in which makes them untrue to someone who was living them. 


Is there an Absolute Youth? is there even an Objective Youth? 

Comments

  1. Hello Everybody,
    My name is Mrs Sharon Sim. I live in Singapore and i am a happy woman today? and i told my self that any lender that rescue my family from our poor situation, i will refer any person that is looking for loan to him, he gave me happiness to me and my family, i was in need of a loan of $250,000.00 to start my life all over as i am a single mother with 3 kids I met this honest and GOD fearing man loan lender that help me with a loan of $250,000.00 SG. Dollar, he is a GOD fearing man, if you are in need of loan and you will pay back the loan please contact him tell him that is Mrs Sharon, that refer you to him. contact Dr Purva Pius,via email:(urgentloan22@gmail.com) Thank you.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak