Comments on: Principia Mathematica: The Comic Book

By: Ian Stuart

Ian Stuart — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:08:08 +0000

Russell was certainly not a believer in the overarching power of logic. Read his book “Power” which pointed out that physical power is the base for all other control. And Principia Mathematica makes exactly the opposite point to ribock’s, it shows that if you accept the axioms you can derive the propositions and that maths and logic converge, except for one theorem.

By: Matthew Wampler-Doty

Matthew Wampler-Doty — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:25:04 +0000

Robin:

I’m sorry, but “logic was unable to be proved logically” doesn’t make any sense.

Perhaps you are thinking of the Godel Incompleteness Theorems. This is not what they say… you might want to check out Torkel Franzen’s “Godel’s Theorem: An Incomplete Guide to Its Use and Abuse”, or a textbook on mathematical logic.

By: ribock

ribock — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:17:02 +0000

Russell well knew that logic did contain all truth. He tells how he learned geometry from his brother at an early age. The lessons began with Euclid’s axioms and propositions. Young Russell asked for the proofs for the axioms. His brother told him that if he didn’t accept the axioms then the lessons couldn’t continue. This shock stayed with Russell all his life.

By: Robin JG

Robin JG — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:34:21 +0000

Although some poetic licence was used, I kind of read it the other way round – it was the protesters were asking Russell for the logical answer.

He, on the other hand, was shaken to the core NOT that his “beloved logic did not contain the answers to all of life’s problems” but rather that he realised that logic was unable to be proved logically.

After that I think understandably everything else would be rather shocking and bewildering.

By: Matthew Wampler-Doty

Matthew Wampler-Doty — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:30:47 +0000

I thought this was an exciting treatment the history of logic too!

Anyway, you are right that the authors took some comic license. Russell didn’t feel that logic contained the answers to all of life’s problems, or if he had then he abandoned this view much earlier. As far as I can tell, the romantic idea of logic being able to mechanically resolve any disput has its origins in Leibniz’s writings… Russell writes about this, as well as his skepticism, in his 1918 essay “Mysticism and Logic”:

“If controversies were to arise,” [Liebniz] says, “there would be no more need of disputation between two philosophers than between two accountants. For it would suffice to take their pens in their hands, to sit down to their desks, and to say to each other (with a friend as witness, if they liked), ‘Let us calculate.’” This optimism has now appeared to be somewhat excessive; there still are problems whose solution is doubtful, and disputes which calculation cannot decide.

One can pick up an electronic copy of Russell’s book here:
http://ia340905.us.archive.org/2/items/mysticismlogicot00russiala/