Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Kyocus t1_itvufwv wrote

Reply to comment by HotterRod in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin

So, I am no expert in Set Theory by a LOOONG long shot, regardless please hear me out.In Principia Mathematica, Chapter 1, right when it starts with Preliminary Explanations: "The notation adopted in the present work is based upon that of Peano, and the following explanations are to some extent modelled on those which he prefixes to his Formulario Mathematico."

I reference all this to point out that the book is built upon an older work, which is based on Logical Positivism. Russell's work is based on Direct reference theory, which he supported. The ideas in Principia Mathematica arise from, as I stated in my previous comment "the number of things we can physically count" i.e. Direct Reference Theory.

Please read the opening paragraph of the Wiki for Direct reference theory, it leads straight back to Logical Positivism, all of which Bertrand Russell was a proponent of.

Edit: The smallest of empirical tethers can lead to astonishing discoveries.

12

DarkSkyKnight t1_itvwpse wrote

This is suggestive evidence, but you would have to do better than that to demonstrate your claim.

7

ridgecoyote t1_itw453p wrote

His claim that Bertrand Russel was a logical positivist? I thought was common knowledge. At least, that’s what I learned in jr. College and I’ve assumed it was true ever since.

3

DarkSkyKnight t1_itwf17l wrote

His (implied) claim that set theories start from empirical observations.

5

ridgecoyote t1_itwgkjw wrote

Ahh. Thanks for clarification. I had issues with that as well, but then, I’m a Pragmatist

1

zhoushmoe t1_itx5s8g wrote

Where else would they start?

1

DarkSkyKnight t1_itxjy3h wrote

I really don't know if you're genuinely asking, but linking a possible chain of inspirations through wiki pages is not a rigorous demonstration of their claim.

1

noactuallyitspoptart t1_iu4rmui wrote

Russell was not a logical positivist, he predates the logical positivists and only agrees with some aspects of their project.

2

ridgecoyote t1_iu59loi wrote

Thanks for the update. Never been a big Russel fan. I prefer Josiah Royce’s metaphysical system and find it more logical

1

Kyocus t1_itvywsm wrote

Lol that's a fair assessment. I'm not going to use more time on a thread I feel is thoroughly discussed.

2

noactuallyitspoptart t1_iu4rfr2 wrote

Russell was not a proponent of logical positivism, and made his philosophical contributions before the Vienna Circle, Ayer etc.

Russell is associated with the “Direct Reference Theory” due to his influential paper “On Denoting”, which makes the meaning of a name the reference of its descriptive content. In this sense Russell is a “direct reference” theorist, but only in contrast to Frege, who proposed an intermediary “sense” of a name, between the idea and the object to which it refers. Russell’s work did not, at the time, fall under such a name “Direct Reference Theory” although his work may reasonably be associated with this later theoretical development. Furthermore, Russell’s account of number and of mathematics in the Principia Mathematica is not rooted in Direct Reference Theory in the way you describe: they are separate contribution that are only linked by Russell’s broader work on and advocacy of Frege’s logic. Principia Mathematica, as a project, in fact predates Russell’s work in On Denoting.

2