This article is Santayana's review of Bertrand Russell's 1910 book, Philosophical Essays.

In this paper I wish to consider two major criticisms that have been advanced against the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God, criticisms which many philosophers regard as constituting a decisive refutation of that argument. Before stating and examining these objections it will be helpful to have before us a version of the Cosmological Argument The Cosmological Argument has two distinct parts. The first part is an argument to establish the existence of a necessary being. The second part is (...) an argument to establish that this necessary being is God. The two objections I shall consider are directed against the first part of the Cosmological Argument. Using the expression ‘dependent being’ to mean ‘a being that has the reason for its existence in the causal efficacy or nature of some other being’, and the expression ‘independent being’ to mean’ a being that has the reason for its existence within its own nature’, we may state the argument for the existence of a necessary being as follows. (shrink)

One hundred years have passed since the birth of Bertrand Russell, major English bourgeois philosopher of the twentieth century, logician, mathematician, sociologist, publicist, and Nobel Laureate for literature, who died two years ago. Russell was a philosopher who always sought truth, who tried to use for philosophy the lessons and achievements of diverse sciences, who responded deeply to social events in England and other countries, and who participated actively in them. He was a prominent public figure, a passionate humanist, and (...) a fighter against militarism and for peace and just relations among peoples. The literature on Russell is enormous. (shrink)

Mcguiness finds in the early wittgenstein a metaphysics similar to\nthat of nature mysticism. he discusses the relation between this\nkind of mysticism and wittgenstein's views on logic, ethics, aesthetics,\noptimism, solipsism, and 'living in the present.' he suggests that\nwittgenstein may have had some kind of mystical experience which\ninfluenced his early philosophy. (staff).

This clear reference to unlimited freedom in values despite limited freedom in causality pictures quite accurately the theme of this article. Lord Russell made the statement in the closing eloquent paragraph of a 1927 volume he wrote to outline the problems of philosophy. He evidently feels that, prescinding from determinism or non-determinism in the causal sphere, freedom can still be meaningfully discussed in the ethical sphere, the realm of human values, though obviously in a special sense of the word ‘freedom’. (...) In other words, regardless of man’s psychological freedom or nonfreedom, Russell asserts that in the moral order man has perfect ‘freedom’ to decide for himself what shall be good or evil, right or wrong. (shrink)

THE problem of religious knowledge may be stated very simply. If there is a real God, how can we find out that fact? The present discussion assumes that this is just what we must find out, if there is to be any possibility of a philosophically valid religion; for the essential element in religion is God, and consequently the essential philosophical question in regard to religion is that of the reality of God.