He is too practical, too much wrapped up in the problems of his time.
Since Copernicus, it has been evident that Man has not the cosmic importance which he formerly arrogated to himself.
So you're not supposed to philosophize on matters pertaining to humans and their practical problems nor of "cosmic importance." What exactly are you supposed to philosophize about?
Number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin
The only non-joke answer I could think of is aesthetics. So, philosophers should be nothing more than glorified art critics.
Modern western philosophy is glorified art critics but with tenure
Apparently, this is Bertrand Russell, so it makes a lot more sense. I guess philosophers are supposed to only concern themselves with formal logic and writing three volume works to prove 1+1=2. That and critiquing movies you haven't seen like Zizek.
Modern aesthetics are concerned with human experience and material realities,especially when it comes to taste and smell aesthetics.
You philosophize about how many Germans does it take to change a lightbulb
“Marx is only interested in human problems on earth, and cares nothing for non human issues outside of earth” is a truly straw clutching criticism for a philosopher who was speaking about human societetal organisation which at that point was entirely on the surface of the planet (and to all practical purposes remains that way presently).
Yes, he neatly explained political economics, but he didn’t say anything about gas/plasma currents within stars, or of non carbon based life’s bio chemistry so I think we can ignore his works as irrelevant as he fails to consider wider issues.
Also how can it be progress if capitalists don’t benefit??
"Liberalism will benefit a larger group of entrepreneurial citizens unendowed with the pedigree required to become a fully respected agent in the world of monarchism, but it won't be very good for kings and queens now will it? Ergo liberalism is not progressive at all!"
His purview is confined to this planet, and, within this planet, to Man
The only way I'll accept this as valid criticism is if the writer is a Posadist 
To long our martian comrades have been ignored. I will not stand for such xenophobia 
Surreptitiously accepting Malthus's doctrine of population
Seriously wtf does he mean by this.
Also Marx never mentions Dialectical Materialism, the closest anyone gets is Engels describes their method as a "materialist dialectic."
There are so many errors in just this one paragraph I can't even fathom.
I know the answer but of course I can't help asking it: how can such renowned and educated thinkers be so incredibly wrong so consistently? I have little formal education past high school and have a better grasp of these topics than Bertrand Fucking Russell. I know people who work at grocery stores who make 99% of economists and philosophy professors look like total fools.
Marx was muddle headed? Are you fucking serious??
I'll do my best to be charitable to Russell, only for the interest of other readers.
Malthus and his notion of competition was broadly accepted by Adam Smith (labor theory of value, etc.) AND Darwin, prolewiki has an excerpt from Charles Darwin's autobiography where he mentions the impact of Malthus' Essays on Population on his thinking during his time on the HMS Beagle.
Marx was well enamoured and impressed by Darwin's theory of evolution & Origin of Species. Marx sent Darwin a copy of Capital, if I remember because he saw it as an evolution or building upon Darwin's work (which I would agree with, just not sure if that's exactly what Marx said or intended).
If Russell disagreed with competition, and preferred cooperation, maybe the criticism has a bit of weight, if you exclude like a bunch of context (which honestly it sorta seems the later Russell would do frequently?? idk I haven't read him too much).
Seems like a stretch but I'm familiar with the points you make and I appreciate the connections. I find it hard to believe that Russell was familiar with this particular bit of trivia, that Marx sent Darwin a copy of Das Kapital (which Darwin never read) and to do so would somewhat rehabilitate Malthus who Russell seems to want to associate with Marx -- transferring Malthus's disproven theories onto Marx: one of the leading scholars responsible for thoroughly disproving them.
Yes most certainly a stretch. I would have to read more of what Russell had to say on the matter. I am often confused by his work since he contradicts or changes his views from his earlier to later work.
I still feel that within the first few chapters of Capital and definitely in his other works, Marx pretty clearly diverges from his influences of Malthus, Ricardo, and Smith. Stating that they all were touching on the truth, but missed it in some way because they didn't understand the primary contradictions of capitalism. Which he is understandable about as many of them were writing during the reign of kings and hadn't yet seen the monster that was capitalist imperialism.
Oh yeah completely fair, I agree. I was spitballing, because I have a special place for Russell (his problems of philosophy was my first book on philosophy years and years ago)
I like much of Bertrand Russell's writing. And jeez he had some huge L's. Don't look into what he thought would be a good use of nuclear arms post-WW2.
Since Copernicus, it has been evident that Man has not the cosmic importance which he formerly arrogated to himself
Nuh uh! Marx is at the center of humanity and we revolve around him! If this weren't the case, why is it that both leftists and chuds are both obsessed with him?
Ha, owned.
Karl Marx is an idea, a world-historical heroine, light itself
considered purely as a philosopher
Luckily no one considers him as purely a philosopher, so these paragraphs are entirely pointless
What a shortcoming, thinking about things that actually exist
obvious that the "oh only thinking about real things makes you a bad philosopher" is ridiculous; but the jump from "everyone was concerned about progress, which people thought inevitable, which they thought was innately good and therefore outside of ethical considerations" is equally hand-wavy and ignorant
The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways • the point however is to change it.
aka stfu nerd
Oh btw forgot to mention this is Bertrand Russell
Yeah that checks out a lot.
Russell is a fucking nerd and one of the main reasons I hate analytic philosophy
This is where you end up if you can't accept that Hegel has already written the last word in philosophy, so there's no more need for "pure philosophers".
Marx every other line: I concern myself with the capacity of societies to produce what they need to survive, therefore I consider capitalism as progressive in relation to earlier forms of production, due to it's fast development of science, technology, machines and it's specific form of social division of labor, all things that greatly enhanced western Europe's production. In that vein, this fast advancement tends to develop production even further, pointing to a more "progressed" society, if we organize ourselves to that end.
Nerds: Ha! Marx used the word "progress", therefore he is merely a positivist. No, I haven't actually read anything he wrote, why do you ask?
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank