Ortega sounds marvellous. I will have to add him to my library. I believe metaphysics remains a very important discipline, but there are few who can articulate it so clearly. I am also very appreciative of his historical perspective. Many thanks.

But does Ortega sound correct? Does he sound as if he has evidence for what he states? That matters too.

Does he sound sound to you?

Ortega? I think he is too excitable.

I am starting to like these continental philosphers much more than the boring dull dry academic positivist analyst logic choppes Ayer, Russell, Quine. They are much more humorous and have much more vitality about them

well but it's the human dimension. These analytical philosophers only ever seem interested in what makes sentences true. The continental philosophers seem much more interested in what makes life meaningful

I don't really know about Ortega having sense of humour but going on his photo....

Actually, I agree, Russell was indeed a many-faceted individual, actually it was probably mistaken of me to have categorised him that way. However I think as his career progressed he became more and more focussed on the analytical and logical aspects, and lost some of that rather more speculative and original thinking that he had when younger.

I still always remember his conclusion to the History of Western Philosophy, along the lines of 'even though we [analytical philosophers] recognise that there are things the intellect and science cannot tell us, we refuse to admit that there are hidden or higher forms of knowledge'... or something along those lines

it is a little hard to make a definitive judgement, based on what little information I have, but I looked up the Wikipedia entry, and from what I can see, very well worth reading. He has a very solid grounding in traditional metaphysics, in fact held a chair in it, but also seems to have a very real grasp of philosophy as a life skill. I am starting to like these continental philosphers much more than the boring dull dry academic positivist analyst logic choppes Ayer, Russell, Quine. They are much more humorous and have much more vitality about them. He may be excitable but so what. I bet he was a great conversationalist.

They [analytical philosophers] confess frankly that the human intellect is unable to find conclusive answers to many questions of profound importance to mankind, but they refuse to believe that there is some 'higher' way of knowing, by which we can discover truths hidden from science and the intellect.

Betrand Russell, The History of Western Philosophy, Unwin Paperbacks 1979, p789

I have always disagreed with this, and has the time has passed the conviction has only grown. This for various reasons. There is, for example, the faculty of intuition - which I understand as 'knowing without knowing how you know' - which is almost always a major factor in scientific discovery and all kinds of other intellectual endeavour. (See The Sleepwalkers by Arthur Koestler). There is also, in Eastern and Western metaphysics terms such as 'jnana', 'prajna' 'gnosis', 'noesis', Aristotle's 'active intellect', Plotinus' 'Nous'. All of these terms connote some form of 'wisdom' which requires a quality of character and a sense of judgement, in addition to whatever can be described in propositions or equations. So maybe they are exactly the 'higher or hidden types of knowledge' which Russell (and Ayer and others) rejected; in fact, I think the way Russell understands 'intellect' is quite different to how it is understood by many continental philosophers (e.g. Bergson) and that the Continental tradition has had a much higher respect for this facility of 'higher understanding'.

Again, going back to that quote of Ortega, this is what I think he was driving at as well, and I bet he would take an equally dim view of this quote of Russell's and his 'secular scholasticism'.

I think jeeprs is describing something no more magical than learning how to shoot a bow