From: holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Subject: Re: Of apples and their skins
Organization: Boise State University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:45:06 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.091451.15840@netcom.com> steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.155935.18205@guinness.idbsu.edu> holmes@garnet.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) writes:
>[Clear explaination of Russel's use of the Liar deleted--thanks for
>clarifying that...]
>>
>>Russell's motive was not to show off or to confuse anyone; it was
>>serious alarm about basic concepts being applied in mathematics at the
>>time.  When Russell discussed the Liar, his aim was to look for
>>correct principles of reasoning which would avoid the paradox above
>>and other similar problems.
>>
>
>If Russell was a mathematician, what was he doing calling himself a
>philosopher?  That, really, was my point.  What Russell, and most other
>Moderns call "philosophy" is simply mathematics or linguistics (or
>gibberish).  People--normal everyday folks, not mathematicians--look to
>philosophy to help them in their every day lives.  Of course the
>business of helping people would involve certainty--a thoroughly
>unfashionable concept amongst those who displace philosophy departments
>these days.

This is stupid on so many levels I can't sort them all out.  Russell
was a philosopher (mathematics is not all he did).  Read other things
he wrote.  The relevance of mathematical and linguistic issues to (A)
philosophy and (B) helping people is real.  Mathematics is used all
the time; if it is incoherent, we have problems.  On a linguistic
level, you can get to the "paradoxes" Russell was wrestling with just
as fast as you do in set theory; and is it not practical to understand
how we say what we are saying (we do often say it wrong, you know)?
It would be nice to be certain (and mathematicians are generally
dispensers of certainty, not doubt!), but if one does not from time to
time question the grounds of one's certainties, one may remain certain
of things which are FALSE.  Falsehoods don't help people.

In addition, any mathematician or scientist can call himself a
philosopher legitimately; study the history of these disciplines.
Further, there were and remain genuine, interesting philosophical
problems which do not have immediate practical applications.  I agree
with you that many false and dangerous ideas are being taught in
philosophy departments these days; I agree that people should look to
philosophy for guidance, but I doubt very much that they are actually
doing so in significant numbers.

>
>(A word to the Wise: these linguists and number-crunchers have no hope
>of offering real solutions to real problems: don't accept the premise
>that Humankind's most important study is actually a series of word
games.)

Mathematics, an obviously frivolous activity, and natural science,
another essentially frivolous activity at the outset, combined to
build modern industrial civilization.  These endeavours took a long
time to bear fruit, and they were not addressed to "solving people's
problems" in any immediate way.  Nor could they have achieved anything
if the energies of their practitioners had been demanded for some
idiot's idea of "solving people's problems" in a short-term fashion.
The world's problems are not solved in the way you think.  The exact
linguistic and mathematical stuff you are complaining about is being
_applied_ in computer science as we speak.

The wise do not fool themselves into thinking that they necessarily
know what is or will be useful.

>
>When push comes to shove, the world will NEED people with answers.  People
>will NEED philosophers that give them an explanation that is not, "there
>is no answer".  

Indeed they will.  The answers had better be right, though.  And they
don't come into existence by the proclamation that they are needed
(although charlatans who claim that they have them, do).

>
>Modern philosophers will be the first against the wall when the 
>revolution comes...
>
>Russell WAS one of these modern philosophers.  That was the point I was
>trying to make: if he's not providing solutions to the world's problems
>then he's just mentally masturbating--and charging addmission to watch...

How do you know what provides a solution to the world's problems, and
on what level?  Russell's theory of types, by the way, is alive, well,
and heavily applied in computer science.

>
>_____
>Steve Thomas
>steveth@rossinc.com


-- 
The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu