Upon further inspection, I’ve concluded something is seriously wrong here (especially if Russell had much of an impact in shaping later philosophers’ view of Hegel). In Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy, Russell claims Hegel’s knowledge of mathematics is out of date and that he believed calculus requires infinitesimals. This is totally wrong. The longest (or one of the longest) sections in his Science of Logic is an attempt at refuting the validity of infinitesimals (while still affirming the validity of the differential and integral calculus).
This is not the only example of this sort of thing. Russell has a lot of examples like this where he clearly didn’t read the original sources and it suffers from this. There are similar issues where he bashes Aristotle for a lack of empiricism.
Upon further inspection, I’ve concluded something is seriously wrong here (especially if Russell had much of an impact in shaping later philosophers’ view of Hegel). In Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy, Russell claims Hegel’s knowledge of mathematics is out of date and that he believed calculus requires infinitesimals. This is totally wrong. The longest (or one of the longest) sections in his Science of Logic is an attempt at refuting the validity of infinitesimals (while still affirming the validity of the differential and integral calculus).
Will investigate further when I have the time.
This is not the only example of this sort of thing. Russell has a lot of examples like this where he clearly didn’t read the original sources and it suffers from this. There are similar issues where he bashes Aristotle for a lack of empiricism.
Did you manage to research this issue further? I’m curious.