Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

Quotation (related only because it&#x27;s from Russell):<p>&quot;The fundamental argument for freedom of opinion is the doubtfulness of all our belief... when the State intervenes to ensure the indoctrination of some doctrine, it does so because there is no conclusive evidence in favour of that doctrine .. It is clear that thought is not free if the profession of certain opinions make it impossible to make a living.&quot;<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Bertrand_Russell" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Bertrand_Russell</a>

I love Bertrand Russell&#x27;s writing style.<p>His piece on writing is a must read:<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;personal.kent.edu&#x2F;~rmuhamma&#x2F;Philosophy&#x2F;RBwritings&#x2F;howWrite.htm" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;personal.kent.edu&#x2F;~rmuhamma&#x2F;Philosophy&#x2F;RBwritings&#x2F;how...</a><p>He translates this:<p>&quot;Human beings are completely exempt from undesirable behaviour-patterns only when certain prerequisites, not satisfied except in a small percentage of actual cases, have, through some fortuitous concourse of favourable circumstances, whether congenital or environmental, chanced to combine in producing an individual in whom many factors deviate from the norm in a socially advantageous manner&quot;<p>Into this:<p>&quot;All men are scoundrels, or at any rate almost all. The men who are not must have had unusual luck, both in their birth and in their upbringing.&quot;

I love Bertrand Russell man. His essays are so beautifully written.<p>In praise of idleness is a banger. The conquest of happiness is a joy to read. His writings are so clear. The way he elucidates his thought process is sublime. What a cool guy.

Pope? Perhaps not.<p>Cardinal <i>in pectore</i>? No one could know!<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;In_pectore" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;In_pectore</a>

I remember one of my high school theology teachers had a placard placed above the wall with a Russell quote:<p>&gt; most people would die sooner than think—in fact, they do so

The principle of explosion!<p>To me, no greater proof of the existence of truth and the value of truth, and the concept of truth.<p>If you think &quot;Well, maybe this truth thing isn&#x27;t really necessary, things are all absurd anyways, isn&#x27;t everything just an arbitrary construct?&quot;<p>Well, assume me a falsehood and I will explode your world.

There&#x27;s something about the cardinality of that set

By the same reasoning, assuming that 1=0, I too am the Pope, and I am therefore also Bertrand Russell.

Why does this site open Wikipedia when I double-click?

In the version I heard, Russel says: &quot;I am one, the pope is one, therefore the pope and I are one.&quot; I doubt he ever said that, but it sounds like him.

Any suggestion about a course or online material to be able to understand this? Would like to understand it but quite lost to be honest.

I don&#x27;t see how the conclusion must be that he&#x27;s the Pope. It containing just him and the Pope but actually only just him is a contradiction that could just as easily be resolved by saying &quot;it contains me and the Pope but actually just me so there is no Pope.&quot; Even if I accept the false proposition, the conclusion doesn&#x27;t necessarily follow.

THAT would have been interesting....

A more traditional argument might look something like<p>Axiom 1: ((1=0 &amp;&amp; 1!=0) -&gt; Pope(Russell)<p>Proposed axiom 2: (1=0 &amp;&amp; 1!=0)<p>1&amp;2 modus ponens: Pope(Russell)

This is funny, but I will forever love Russell’s Paradox better.

You can add infinite to both sides, then you end up with:<p>infinite + 1 = infinite