Philosopher Bertrand Russell's Teapot


galtgulch

Recommended Posts

Galt; At first glance this sounds a something like Peikoff's argument against arbitrary statements.

Like Nathaniel Branden's refusal to acknowledge that Kant had first used the argument that determinism means one can't acquire knowledge. I am not surprised that Peikoff would not acknowledge Russell's argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to OL's own Ted Keer, at another site, the first to use that anti-determinist argument was Epicurus, long before Kant.

I just wrote a program that puts out the statement:

Why should I believe that I was programmed to write out the statement; "Why should I believe that is was programmed to write out this statement"

Why indeed?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not surprised that Peikoff would not acknowledge Russell's argument.

Is the Pope even aware of this argument? If asked could he summarize Russell's ideas on a level other then, "Its Evil Intrincisist, subjectivist, Kantian, anti-concepts of Altruism!!!!!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm inclined to agree with #5. The notions of burden of proof and the need to make a case are familiar ones in philosophy, law and everyday life. The resemblance between what Peikoff says and what Russell says is not enough to prove plagiarism or deliberate suppression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now