@Wilhelm_Grafe Russel was good, but there is a reason why Whitehead stopped working with him. Also I believe that Whitehead went deeper into the problems of philosophy (and I like his style better).

reas@bibliolater@qoto.org @bookstodon @philosophy

@tg9541 @bookstodon @philosophy

yes, agree in a way. but do not see a win in playing off those two against each other, as later (after their common work PM) their work developed rather independently in more or less complementary areas, sometimes overlapping in #PhilSci topics.

E.g., if one focusses in #philosophy first of all on questions of #ontology (of science), ANW's process ontology will be much more impressive than say the duplicating entities of logical constructs in 'logical atomism' (which imop is a late and needless sin of BR).

If, on the other hand, the main focus is #logic and logic related
#epistemology and/or #PhilMath, there is roughly anything deeper and more worth considering than the theory of incomplete symbols; and perhaps no more careful and penetrating study than the ramified theory of types as developed from the circulus vitiosus argument, even when this theory was abandoned in the sequel for independent reasons.