At first glance, it looks like a misunderstanding. “I would never die for my beliefs” is unambiguous, and the “because I might be wrong” is merely a bit of explanation in case you’re wondering why he’d take that stance. So obviously, Russell would not be willing to die for “2+2=4”.
Russell, while a Philosopher of any sort, is perhaps best known for his contributions to math and logic. He is the sort of person who would have insisted that he can’t be wrong that 2+2=4.
In the case that “X because Y”, it is generally assumed that ~Y would have counterfactually resulted in ~X. It was a popular-enough way to approach the problem in the early 20th century, anyway. Thus the statement seems to imply that for any beliefs Russell can’t be wrong about, he is willing to die for them. And thus he seems to be saying that he would die for “2+2=4″, and we’re left to ponder what that would mean.
In what way is it “dying for one’s beliefs” to refuse to capitulate to a gunman about a trivial matter? I’d guess that in that situation, Russell would have perfectly good reasons left to not die for “2+2=4″.
So we might conclude that there are a lot of reasons not to die for a lot of beliefs, other than that we might be wrong about them. So that’s not Russell’s true rejection of dying for one’s beliefs.
Since Russell said he wouldn’t be willing to die for his beliefs because of X, it seems logical to conclude he would be willing to die if not-X. But that is absurd (as highlighted by Eliezer’s question) so Russell hadn’t given his true rejection.
… I’ll add that Russell didn’t give his true rejection but a clever one, so he does prefer cleverness over truthiness, so he would appreciate Eliezer’s rhetorical question, which was more clever than accurate (because 2+2=4 is something Russell could still possibly be wrong about.)
Sharon Fenick
Bertrand Russell
A common sentiment among the thoughtful, it seems.
I would never die for my beliefs because… screw that I would rather lie.
Is Bertrand Russell willing to die if he encounters someone with a gun who demands he agree that 2 + 2 = 5?
I am willing to lie if I encounter someone with a gun who demands I agree that 2 + 2 = 5.
Profess the belief or adopt the belief?
Deceptively clever.
Russell would have liked that one, I think.
Why? (Can you explain?)
At first glance, it looks like a misunderstanding. “I would never die for my beliefs” is unambiguous, and the “because I might be wrong” is merely a bit of explanation in case you’re wondering why he’d take that stance. So obviously, Russell would not be willing to die for “2+2=4”.
Russell, while a Philosopher of any sort, is perhaps best known for his contributions to math and logic. He is the sort of person who would have insisted that he can’t be wrong that 2+2=4.
In the case that “X because Y”, it is generally assumed that ~Y would have counterfactually resulted in ~X. It was a popular-enough way to approach the problem in the early 20th century, anyway. Thus the statement seems to imply that for any beliefs Russell can’t be wrong about, he is willing to die for them. And thus he seems to be saying that he would die for “2+2=4″, and we’re left to ponder what that would mean.
In what way is it “dying for one’s beliefs” to refuse to capitulate to a gunman about a trivial matter? I’d guess that in that situation, Russell would have perfectly good reasons left to not die for “2+2=4″.
So we might conclude that there are a lot of reasons not to die for a lot of beliefs, other than that we might be wrong about them. So that’s not Russell’s true rejection of dying for one’s beliefs.
Ah, got it. Thanks for the explanation.
Since Russell said he wouldn’t be willing to die for his beliefs because of X, it seems logical to conclude he would be willing to die if not-X. But that is absurd (as highlighted by Eliezer’s question) so Russell hadn’t given his true rejection.
… I’ll add that Russell didn’t give his true rejection but a clever one, so he does prefer cleverness over truthiness, so he would appreciate Eliezer’s rhetorical question, which was more clever than accurate (because 2+2=4 is something Russell could still possibly be wrong about.)
Did you mean that, or did you mean die for not “2+2=5”?
Seems ambiguous. I’m not sure which I meant to write. I’ll fix it to be consistent.
He’s probably talking about “ought” beliefs, not “is” beliefs. Even so...
It’s a bit late to threaten Bertrand Russell with anything, particularly a gun, considering that he died decades ago.
Barbarians shouldn’t win. At the very least, we shouldn’t surrender ahead of time.
(Brackets, then parentheses.)
I would die if I believed that would save the world, does that count?
Repeat.
Aye, sorry. It’s a good quote.