Group: alt.philosophy · Group Profile
Author: chazwinchazwin Date: Mar 3, 2008 04:06
On Mar 3, 10:31Â am, "andy-k" wrote:
> "chazwin" wrote:
>> The teapot has exactly the same status as a personal revelation. Russell
>> chose it, he did not choose a small family car, a pink unicorn or a
>> invisible monster called Nigel from Alpha Centauri. His "vision" is
>> consistent with his Britishness, and has all the hallmarks of the Visions
>> of John the B and J Smith: they too were bound by their own cultural
>> conditions in their personal delusions that were "revealed" to them.
>
> I've read the OP again and I can't see any case for revelation there.
Sorry but I've read the dispositions of people who claim to have had
"revelations" but they seem to be talking about something which is
incoherent and delusional. Russell is simply saying that from an
observer's point of view that one man who makes a teapot claim is no
different from a "saint" having a revelation from god.
Would you like to hear my revalation about a space-monster from Alpha
Centauri called Nigel who takes stuff from my fridge after the hours
of darkness?
> I'm not convinced that Russell had a revelation of a celestial teapot --
> more that he chose it as an example of something that is logically
> possible and empirically irrefutable. Perhaps you could support
> your contention with a more relevant extract of Russell's writings?
| 
