Name: Bertrand Russell
Year Won: 1950
Read: "The Problems of Philosophy"
Original Language: English
Reason: "in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought"
About: "The Problems of Philosophy" is basically a slim (160 pages) book covering philosophy - what we know, what we don't know, how we know what we know, perception, etc.
I'm familiar with most of the concepts (I like philosophy and Russell is a well known thinker in the area). With that said, I'm not sure how much of the familiarity is because Russell originated the idea vs. how much is because this is a fairly familiar (if interesting) philosophical concept.
What I liked: It's clearly written and a great introduction to modern philosophy. (At least from Russell's school of thought.)
What I Disliked: Not much. It's very thought provoking and interesting. And many of its central themes are only more interesting when you add in computational thought. (e.g. "what makes a table a table" is only more meaningful when you're trying to pursuade an algorithm to recognize one. Which might be why Russell's work seems so familiar to me!) If there's anything I "disliked" it's that it's not a very literary book. It's...a clearly (and concisely) written philosophy text.
Should it have won a Nobel: Russell is considered one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century. If this was a Noble prize for philosophy, he'd win it hands down.
But is that the purpose of the Nobel prize for literature? I say this because this isn't a particularly literary work. It's a great one (monumental, even!). But it doesn't strike me as literature per se. So I guess much comes down to the purpose of the Noble Prize for literature.
Next Up: Par Lagerkvist's Barabbas
No comments:
Post a Comment