Typical. Whitehead was a vastly deeper thinker than his rather light-weight (as far as philosophy is concerned) sometime collaborator Bertrand Russell. So naturally, he has been forgotten, while other light-weights, such as Richard Dawkins, keep the memory of Russell alive
Well, I don't think Rusell was a lightweight—after all, he worked with Wittgenstein, too, who he was friends with. And some of his essays are masterpieces.
ReplyDeleteBut I do agree that Whitehead is vastly overlooked and underrated. His ideas in the history of science and technology are essential.
I don't think Russell was a light wight in mathematics and I acknowledge his contribution to logic. But I don't see much rigorous philosophical work on his part, and certainly nothing on the order of Whitehead's.
ReplyDeleteNever mind mathematics, if you can wade through the logic in "On Referring" about 1903, or any of Russell's 1910-1920 books on logical atomism, and then "Inquiry into Meaning and Truth" and "Outline of Human Knowledge" (1948) you will see the tremendous contribution Russell made. Whitehead remains obscure because his writing and philosophy were obscure. Whitehead's philosophy seemed to gain credence as he was a big fish in a little tank in the U.S. in the twenties, 30's and 40's.
ReplyDeleteWell, de gustibus, as they say, John. I acknowledged his contribution to logic, but there's a good deal more to philosophy than logic, and I think there's a good deal more philosophical imagination in Whitehead than there is Russell.
ReplyDelete