• Log In

The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast

A Philosophy Podcast and Philosophy Blog

Subscribe on Android Spotify Google Podcasts audible patreon
  • Home
  • Podcast
    • PEL Network Episodes
    • Publicly Available PEL Episodes
    • Paywalled and Ad-Free Episodes
    • PEL Episodes by Topic
    • Nightcap
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Pretty Much Pop
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • (sub)Text
    • Phi Fic Podcast
    • Combat & Classics
    • Constellary Tales
  • Blog
  • About
    • PEL FAQ
    • Meet PEL
    • About Pretty Much Pop
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • Meet Phi Fic
    • Listener Feedback
    • Links
  • Join
    • Become a Citizen
    • Join Our Mailing List
    • Log In
  • Donate
  • Store
    • Episodes
    • Swag
    • Everything Else
    • Cart
    • Checkout
    • My Account
  • Contact
  • Mailing List

PREVIEW-Episode 38: Bertrand Russell on Math and Logic

May 25, 2011 by Mark Linsenmayer 37 Comments

http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.libsyn.com/partiallyexaminedlife/PREVIEW-PEL_ep_038_4-24-11.mp3

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 33:15 — 30.5MB)

This is a 33-minute preview of a 1 hr, 31-minute episode.Bertrand Russell

Buy Now Purchase this episode for $2.99. Or become a PEL Citizen for $5 a month, and get access to this and all other paywalled episodes, including 68 back catalogue episodes; exclusive Part 2's for episodes published after September, 2020; and our after-show Nightcap, where the guys respond to listener email and chat more causally.

Discussing Russell's Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy (1919), ch. 1-3 and 13-18.

How do mathematical concepts like number relate to the real world? Russell wants to derive math from logic, and identifies a number as a set of similar sets of objects, e.g. "3" just IS the set of all trios. Hilarity then ensues.

This book is a shortened and much easier to read version of Russell and Whitehead's much more famous Principia Mathematica, and given that we can't exactly walk through the specific steps of lots of proofs on a purely audio podcast (nor would we want to put you through that), we spend some of the discussion comparing analytic (with its tendency to over-logicize) and continental (with its tendency towards obscurity) philosophy.

Featuring guest podcaster and number guy Josh Pelton, filling in for Seth.

Read with us online or buy the book.

End song: "Words and Numbers," by Madison Lint (read more about this tune).

Looking for the full Citizen version?

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Filed Under: Podcast Episodes Tagged With: analytic vs. continental philosophy, Bertrand Russell, Kurt Gödel, philosophy of mathematics, philosophy podcast

Comments

  1. Daniel Horne says

    May 25, 2011 at 5:33 pm

    Great episode. I laughed out loud at the “New Math” reference. Here’s a primer:
    http://youtu.be/UIKGV2cTgqA

    Reply
  2. Anh-vu Doan says

    May 29, 2011 at 12:13 am

    I did too! Good episode– loved the critique of both camps of philosophy at the end.

    Reply
  3. Jorge Videla says

    May 29, 2011 at 11:46 am

    The truth is analytic “philosophy” is to linguistics, mathematics, natuarl science, and genuine philosophy what a cargo cult is to an industiralized economy.

    Analytic “philosophy”‘s problems aren’t problems. Analytic “philosophers” are intellectual flyweights.

    Reply
    • Mark Linsenmayer says

      May 31, 2011 at 8:59 am

      Hi, Jorge,

      I’m thinking we don’t have the same thing in mind by the term “analytic philosophy.” 80% of what’s been done in England and America since 1910 or so falls into this category, and its adherents range from behaviorist types like Ryle to those much more sympathetic to the humanist project like Danto and Nelson Goodman. Though analytic philosophers generally have different strategies for handling problems, different debates about what constitutes a problem (e.g. Quine and Rorty rule out a lot of traditional problems as legitimate ones), and certainly different conventions re. writing style, there’s a great overlap in their concerns with continental philosophers (and pragmatists, if you want to put those in a third category).

      For a quick idea re. what analytic philosophy is now, listen to this Chalmers lecture: http://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2010/05/25/david-chalmers-on-merely-verbal-disputes/ or pick up Thomas Nagel’s book of essays “Mortal Thoughts.” Those two guys are good examples, I think, of analytic philosophers who are not shy about taking on big problems, but they write clearly and try to cut the problems down into manageable bits (thus the “analytic” designation). Being opaque so people have to guess what the hell you’re talking about is not a virtue, and often covers up shoddy thinking.

      Reply
  4. Joe Varo says

    June 2, 2011 at 6:03 pm

    Just thought that I’d mention a couple of good semi-technical secondary readings that might go well with this episode:

    For Goedel, try “Incompleteness: The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Goedel” by Rebecca Goldstein.

    For infinity, you can’t go wrong with “Everything and More: A Compact History of [infinity symbol]” by David Foster Wallace. In my opinion this is one of the all-time great pieces of science writing. And if your first (perhaps only) foray into DFW was his “Infinite Jest”, don’t worry. I think that his essays are far better than his fiction. But I can’t say too much about DFW: He’s the only person that I did not personally know whose death actually brought me to tears.

    Joe

    Reply
    • Daniel Horne says

      June 2, 2011 at 7:05 pm

      Nice call, Joe — I’ve seen DFW’s “Everything and More” but haven’t yet got round to picking it up. I totally agree that his essays are more interesting and engaging than his fiction. The Anglophone world suffered a major loss with his death.

      Reply
    • Wes Alwan says

      June 4, 2011 at 3:38 pm

      Thanks Joe, will check those out. I couldn’t bear Infinite Jest, but I’ve heard his essays are very good (and incidentally ordered “Consider the Lobster” the other day.

      Reply
      • Daniel Horne says

        June 6, 2011 at 3:49 pm

        Wes, if you want a quick teaser/spoiler, here’s “Consider the Lobster” online:
        http://www.gourmet.com/magazine/2000s/2004/08/consider_the_lobster

        Reply
      • Joe Varo says

        June 12, 2011 at 2:09 pm

        Wes —
        “Consider the Lobster” contains some very good essays, including what is quite possibly my favorite by DFW: “Authority and American Usage”. I hope that you enjoy it.

        Joe

        Reply
    • trekker says

      August 10, 2011 at 1:18 am

      Joe,

      I think a better choice for an intro to the study of infinity is A.W. Moore’s “The Infinite”. Moore is professor of philosophy at Oxford, specializing in the philosophy of mathematics, among other topics. In a review titled, “How To Catch A Tortoise”, http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n24/aw-moore/how-to-catch-a-tortoise/ Moore criticizes Wallace’s work, in “Everything and More”, as full of mistakes and misconceptions. (see the last paragraph of the article).

      I saw an interview with DFW where he acknowledged his ineptitude with the subject and didn’t understand why the publisher’s wanted him to write about it. That being said, his work’s in “Consider The Lobster” and other’s are excellent, as you and others have noted.

      Reply
    • Ryan Usher says

      November 15, 2011 at 11:41 pm

      The Goldstein book on Godel is okay, but in my opinion, could’ve been better; Notices of the American Mathematical Society did a pretty good review of it:
      http://www.ams.org/notices/200604/rev-kennedy.pdf

      Reply
  5. Shiralee says

    July 13, 2011 at 9:27 pm

    Is there any logic in the American habit of abbreviating the word “mathematics” to “math”? The rest of the English speaking world says “maths”, which, because the word being abbreviated is in the plural, is logical.

    Reply
  6. Matthew Clarke says

    August 2, 2011 at 6:49 am

    It’s getting to be a long time since this podcast was released, but I only just got to hear it last week. So if there’s still interest in discussion on this topic, I offer some ideas on why it is a more important topic than the interlocutors concluded.

    I think the discussion missed an important epistemological angle. There is a tendency to think that maths and logic are well-grounded and a “safe” source of knowledge. That mathematical knowledge is “provable”. Russell’s work shows that even if a mathematical claim *is* provable, it is not *easily* provable.

    But the challenges discussed in the podcast, such as Russell’s paradox (the set of all sets etc) and Godel’s theorem, show that even claims about provability are on shaky ground. The common axioms of set theory lead to the troubles such as the Banach-Tarski Paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach%E2%80%93Tarski_paradox). And if that is so, why should we trust other conclusion derived from set theory?

    In summary, I think a key question to address is why we trust the conclusions of maths.

    A good read on this (OK, I’ll admit it — the *only* work I have read on the subject) is “Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty” by Morris Kline.

    Reply
    • Ryan Usher says

      November 15, 2011 at 11:44 pm

      I think it should be important to note here (and it’s mentioned in the wikipedia article) that the Banach-Tarski Paradox isn’t much of a paradox at all, it’s considered a paradox only because of the counter-intuitive nature of its results; The Banach-Tarski result does nothing to diminish or doubt the results of set theory.

      Reply
  7. tr says

    August 4, 2011 at 6:53 am

    Have not listed to the PEL episode yet, but love this subject. Have you ever read Timothy Gower’s intro to Math in the Oxford Intro series or any of Douglas Hofstader, e.g. Godel Escher Bach and I am a Strange Loop. I think it is not so much that “provability is on shaky ground” as that things are provable only within systems. Its pretty clear (probably perfectly clear from Godel) that there is no one big system that captures everything we consider “true” in arithmetic (and which is also internally consistent). So “provability” can only make sense within a system, not as a way of showing the correctness of a choice of systems. That certainly does seem to challenge the notion of Math having some greater claim to reality than other disciplinces; although Godel himself thought he had showed the opposite and was apparently a Platonist. What I think is really neat is the possibilty that all other claims about truth and falisty / reality (i.e. outside Math), are like this too: that they only make sense after you have chosen a system within which to evaluate them — and your choice of system can’t be guided by the same logic-driven principles.

    Reply
  8. tr says

    August 9, 2011 at 6:23 pm

    Have now listened to this. Have loved most every PEL episode. But this one kind of struck me as missing the point. There is something really weird from a philosphic standpoint that the patterns of nature are so suceptible to articulation by arithmetic tools. It didn’t have to be that way. Doesn’t that give math a status as a’thing in itself’ / a part of the basic structure of reality / whatever you want to call it, that is at least a little bit troubling for the Continetnal anti-realists? And then isn’t it more troubling that this tool (arithmetic)– which seems as you do it to be all symbol manipulation — turns out, according to Godel, not to be. If it isn’t all computable, what is it and how are we — with our finite brains — apparently doing it?

    Those aren’t trivial philosophic concerns and some of the possible answers actually shed light on issues the PEL episodes spend a lot of time discussing.

    Reply
    • Mark Linsenmayer says

      August 9, 2011 at 8:37 pm

      We’ll definitely have more episodes on math at some point, with different guest participants. We realized as we were doing this that this particular reading didn’t really address the ontological issue much. For me, this one was about getting my brain back in the right mode to handle the analytic philosophers who use a lot of formal logic. What we read was fun, I think, but only tangentially philosophical. So, yes, I agree with you, I think.

      Reply
  9. tr says

    August 12, 2011 at 9:13 am

    Thanks. To add to your no doubt endless list of possible future episodes — one on the ontologocial issues surrounding numbers would be great. The seemingly mind-independent nature of math might be the best challenge to Continetnal thinking (a good way to get you guys out of the comfort zone, perhaps?), but then Godel (although he probably would have hated to hear it) can actually be strangely confirming of Continental thinking given that the weirdness he discovered all comes from issues involving interpretation — specifically that there are just too many interpretations of airthmetic langauge to fit into a fully computable langauge, so maybe truth in an arithmetic sense is also only available after you commit to a specific interpretation of things. Doug Hoffstader is great on this, and Stanislas Dehaene, although a nero-cognition guy rather than a philosopher, has some incredible stuff on how varied human understanding of Math really is. Thanks again.

    Reply
  10. DS says

    October 17, 2014 at 2:18 pm

    I’m enjoying your podcasts and wanted to add a comment, even if I’m writing from the future, in 2014. I have only heard of the continental philosophy when I moved to the US and had to force myself to live with it as I did with some other peculiar nonsensical Anglo concepts like inches and fl.oz. FYI: there is a nice explanation of how illogical the name “continental” is in the The Continental-Analytic Split episode of In Our Time program (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b016x2jp). Which doesn’t mean that I’m arguing for the use of the word “post-modern” either.. True – this is used on both sides of la Manche. But it is problematic on so many levels and very confusing as it means different things in various discipline within arts and humanities.

    Reply
  11. Doug says

    January 30, 2015 at 4:09 am

    Just casually listening and filling in some gaps. When you mentioned the furniture of the universe I couldn’t help but remember Zappa’s Sofa #1

    Reply

Trackbacks

  1. Georg Cantor and Ever Larger Infinities | The Partially Examined Life | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    May 26, 2011 at 9:21 am

    […] big name-drop during the middle of the Russell episode was the sad story of Georg Cantor and his insanity-inducing continuum hypothesis. Anyone unaware of […]

    Reply
  2. Partially Naked Self-Examination Music Blog: Words & Numbers | The Partially Examined Life | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    May 28, 2011 at 10:36 pm

    […] our Russell episode, given that I try (usually) to find some thematic connection between the topic and the song I […]

    Reply
  3. “Blue Collar Philosophy” on Socrates’s Elitism | The Partially Examined Life | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    May 31, 2011 at 10:22 am

    […] cops an attitude is just a recipe for increasing your own depression. I see this reactiveness and this kind of blanket judgment re. who’s smarter than who as part of the same problem. As I tried to articulate on the Russell episode, the point of […]

    Reply
  4. Josh Pelton’s Amazing Calculations | The Partially Examined Life | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    June 1, 2011 at 12:02 pm

    […] the beginning of the Russell episode, we mentioned our guest Josh’s strange calculations. (See here for lyrics to Bob […]

    Reply
  5. Bertrand Russell’s Very Short Introduction to His Ontology | The Partially Examined Life | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    June 1, 2011 at 9:59 pm

    […] those who can’t get enough Bertrand Russell, here’s an introduction to logical analysis from his History of Western Philosophy. In this […]

    Reply
  6. Math Mutation Podcast on "New Math" and Russell | The Partially Examined Life | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    June 3, 2011 at 11:30 pm

    […] the Russell episode, I brought up “new math,” whereby young people were taught set theory. The podcast I […]

    Reply
  7. Russell's Epistemology: "The Problems of Philosophy" | The Partially Examined Life | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    June 8, 2011 at 11:17 am

    […] wanted to follow up on a reference I made on the episode for folks who want to know more about Russell’s […]

    Reply
  8. Russell's Atomistic Metaphysics | The Partially Examined Life | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    June 10, 2011 at 1:05 pm

    […] For a bit more information, here’s his essay “The Ultimate Constituents of Matter,” pointed out to us (dismissively) by frequent blog discussion contributor Burl and mentioned on our recent episode. […]

    Reply
  9. "Prima Facie Weirdness?" | The Partially Examined Life | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    June 20, 2011 at 10:48 am

    […] sometimes exhibit about philosophy: yes, thinking about whether this chair is really here or about the foundations of arithmetic is pretty weird and esoteric, and we surely wouldn’t wish it on everyone, but it’s fun […]

    Reply
  10. Moral Psychology vs. Normativity | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    June 20, 2012 at 10:11 am

    […] see a lot of parallels to Russell’s view of mathematics here: it’s conventional, but if taken seriously, it needs to be a full, coherent system, […]

    Reply
  11. Bertrand Russell on Logical Analysis | The grokking eagle says:
    June 22, 2012 at 1:37 pm

    […] http://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2011/05/25/episode-38-bertrand-russell-o… […]

    Reply
  12. Topic for #66: Quine on Language, Logic, and Science | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    October 17, 2012 at 11:46 am

    […] Van Orman Quine (1908–2000) was a prototypical American analytic philosopher. Following Frege, Russell, and Wittgenstein, he was concerned with how logic provides a foundation for mathematics, which in […]

    Reply
  13. Topic for #68: Interviewing David Chalmers on Conceptual Analysis and Metaphysics | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    January 12, 2013 at 1:57 am

    […] it). For this breed of analytic philosophy (shared not only by Chalmers and Carnap, but also by Russell and Wittgenstein), ontology becomes conceptual […]

    Reply
  14. Topic for #95: Gödel on Math | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    June 7, 2014 at 11:39 am

    […] dialogue about the foundations of mathematics, which you can learn about from our episodes on Bertrand Russell at (though in this latter case math was less of our focus than logic and language) Gottlob Frege. […]

    Reply
  15. Holiday Special 2015: Mark Lint’s “Songs from the Partially Examined Life” with Many Guest Greetings | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    December 24, 2015 at 10:21 am

    […] out Josh Pelton's (guest from Ep. #38) "Thunk" YouTube […]

    Reply
  16. Creationism and Structural Relations between Sciences | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    July 14, 2016 at 7:00 am

    […] a special case of a broader problem in philosophy, the problem of induction. For more on this, see Russell’s Chicken or Nelson Goodman’s concept of […]

    Reply
  17. Russell vs. Wittgenstein: Judgment or Representation? | My 720p says:
    November 27, 2016 at 5:03 pm

    […] PREVIEW-Episode 38: Bertrand Russell on Math and Logic […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

PEL Live Show 2023

Brothers K Live Show

Citizenship has its Benefits

Become a PEL Citizen
Become a PEL Citizen, and get access to all paywalled episodes, early and ad-free, including exclusive Part 2's for episodes starting September 2020; our after-show Nightcap, where the guys respond to listener email and chat more causally; a community of fellow learners, and more.

Rate and Review

Nightcap

Listen to Nightcap
On Nightcap, listen to the guys respond to listener email and chat more casually about their lives, the making of the show, current events and politics, and anything else that happens to come up.

Subscribe to Email Updates

Select list(s):

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Support PEL

Buy stuff through Amazon and send a few shekels our way at no extra cost to you.

Tweets by PartiallyExLife

Recent Comments

  • Mark Linsenmayer on Ep. 302: Erasmus Praises Foolishness (Part Two)
  • Mark Linsenmayer on Ep. 308: Moore’s Proof of Mind-Independent Reality (Part Two for Supporters)
  • Mark Linsenmayer on Ep. 201: Marcus Aurelius’s Stoicism with Ryan Holiday (Citizen Edition)
  • MartinK on Ep. 201: Marcus Aurelius’s Stoicism with Ryan Holiday (Citizen Edition)
  • Wayne Barr on Ep. 308: Moore’s Proof of Mind-Independent Reality (Part Two for Supporters)

About The Partially Examined Life

The Partially Examined Life is a philosophy podcast by some guys who were at one point set on doing philosophy for a living but then thought better of it. Each episode, we pick a text and chat about it with some balance between insight and flippancy. You don’t have to know any philosophy, or even to have read the text we’re talking about to (mostly) follow and (hopefully) enjoy the discussion

Become a PEL Citizen!

As a PEL Citizen, you’ll have access to a private social community of philosophers, thinkers, and other partial examiners where you can join or initiate discussion groups dedicated to particular readings, participate in lively forums, arrange online meet-ups for impromptu seminars, and more. PEL Citizens also have free access to podcast transcripts, guided readings, episode guides, PEL music, and other citizen-exclusive material. Click here to join.

Blog Post Categories

  • (sub)Text
  • Aftershow
  • Announcements
  • Audiobook
  • Book Excerpts
  • Citizen Content
  • Citizen Document
  • Citizen News
  • Close Reading
  • Combat and Classics
  • Constellary Tales
  • Exclude from Newsletter
  • Featured Ad-Free
  • Featured Article
  • General Announcements
  • Interview
  • Letter to the Editor
  • Misc. Philosophical Musings
  • Nakedly Examined Music Podcast
  • Nakedly Self-Examined Music
  • NEM Bonus
  • Not School Recording
  • Not School Report
  • Other (i.e. Lesser) Podcasts
  • PEL Music
  • PEL Nightcap
  • PEL's Notes
  • Personal Philosophies
  • Phi Fic Podcast
  • Philosophy vs. Improv
  • Podcast Episode (Citizen)
  • Podcast Episodes
  • Pretty Much Pop
  • Reviewage
  • Song Self-Exam
  • Supporter Exclusive
  • Things to Watch
  • Vintage Episode (Citizen)
  • Web Detritus

Follow:

Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | Apple Podcasts

Copyright © 2009 - 2023 · The Partially Examined Life, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy · Terms of Use · Copyright Policy

Copyright © 2023 · Magazine Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in